Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Silly duck-duck, I don't have to pray-read John 16 to see that Jesus speaks of the father, son, and helper.

But maybe if I pray-read it long enough I'll see the Trinitarian Creeds in there.

I'm just wondering why Jesus failed to spell out those creeds right then and there, so we wouldn't have to wait hundreds of years to finally get it.

Pray-read? You're a funny brother Untohim. That's a method of seeing things in scripture that aren't there. And it wasn't even mentioned in the creeds ... that also saw things that aren't there.

And the words Bible (book) and canon are extra-Biblical ... like trinity.

And when Paul wrote his letters, they too were "extra-biblical", until they were accepted as biblical.

At that time there was no such thing as "solo scriptura". There was scripture, there was oral tradition, there was life experiences. So they sought to redefine God's nature according to their experience of Christ and the Spirit. It was never borne from a "sola scriptura" reading of the Old Testament, which clearly says "God is One".

The ante-Nicene Fathers provide support for the Trinity so it is correct and is also biblical.

However they do not go into such detail that would provide support or denial of the finer aspects such as the relationship between the three persons. It is these finer aspects which are extra-biblical, the ones that say Jesus is not the Father and Jesus is not the Son. Such doctrines were formulated much later when the Church sought to refine the doctrine against new heresies. It was important for them to clearly delineate between the three persons for the sake of the particular heresies which arose.

However the bible alone never explains in great detail whether Jesus is the Father or not, and in fact a plain literal reading of Isaiah and other verses we would conclude that Jesus is the Father and Jesus became the Spirit. That's what the bible plainly says, in English and in Greek or Hebrew. There is nothing in the original text to say "Jesus is like a father", and "Jesus became only like the Spirit but not actually the Spirit". If Jesus is not the Father then Immanuel, "God with us" cannot be true. Jesus would be called "like God with us".

I think it is kind of sad to see Christians scratching their head, confused about who the Spirit is, when the bible clearly says the Spirit is Jesus. So they pray and talk to someone they call Jesus, but the Spirit is treated as another different person.

I think that reading Scripture alone, we might even conclude that there are four or five persons of the Trinity, as a fourth possible person, the Word, is seen in John chapter 1. Those who don't know that the Word is Christ, could wrongly say that the Word is the fourth person.

In any case, I don't see much biblical support for the idea that God will judge anyone for incorrectly defining his true nature. I feel the most honest interpretation is one which declares that it is an unknowable mystery however our experience tells us that as far as we know, God is a Trinity. And in 2000 years time will God reveal himself again and we have to think of another person? I don't think so, but that is what happened between the Old and the New Testaments when God who was One became , or was revealed, rather, to us as both One and Three.

[JJ]

I'm not sure how this thread evolved into a discussion of "The Trinity". Boy if we figure out how to explain that we will have solved a 2000+ year mystery!

I'll resist the temptation and appreciate that through Christ we have been given access to the Father through the Spirit and come forward to the throne of grace!

[JJ]

Back to Hank Hanegraff. I wish him no ill, and am praying for him too.

My one experience with Hanegraff's CRI was an e-mail to ask if the brothers from TLR ever apologized or expressed regret for suing CRI. The e-mail response from one CRI's "researchers" was to say they had investigated TLR, sent me a link to the article everyone already saw, and say the case was closed. Then he asked for a donation to CRI. Kinda turned me off. :confused5:

[aron]

The e-mail response .. was to say they had investigated TLR, sent me a link to the article everyone already saw, and say the case was closed. Then he asked for a donation to CRI.

The CRI was a cash cow for Hank, that was pretty obvious. As a public non-profit the records were open, and Hank's expense accounts were lavish. And his wife was on the payroll for like $150K from what I remember (Hank got something like $400K annually, plus 2 new Lexus, plus exclusive golf club membership, plus free housing, etc).

And he left behind a trail of former employees who went on record saying that they were overworked, had their intellectual property (writing) stolen, and were underpaid. It didn't look like a Christian organization in the slightest. And yet this was the supposed watchdog of Protestant orthodoxy? Did we come to this?

TLR's critiques of "fallen Christianity" are often on the mark, or at least with some basis. But if you put the same measure on them they fail utterly. And their getting approved by CRI is like a government getting recognized by North Korea. So what.

[Kevin]

The Impact of the Living Stream Ministries Cult on Hank Hanegraaff (https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/the-impact-of-the-living-stream-ministries-cult-on-hank-hanegraaff/#comment-16284)

[Evangelical]

The Impact of the Living Stream Ministries Cult on Hank Hanegraaff (https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/the-impact-of-the-living-stream-ministries-cult-on-hank-hanegraaff/#comment-16284)

I wouldn't trust anything written by someone who believes Hank and Witness Lee are damned:

If Hanegraaff and the others involved at CRI honestly believe that Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministries teach “sound orthodoxy” then they are just as damned as Lee.

This guy is an example of someone who has turned away from correct view that justification is a person, which the apostles believed, not caring for a particular theology, Calvinist, reformed, or otherwise, and have instead trusted in their so-called "orthodox sound doctrine" for salvation.

These people claim to live by sola fide (faith alone) but in actuality it is a complex web of doctrines and interpretations of the bible dating from around 500 years ago (not the time of the apostles) by which they measure, judge and condemn all others. And their condemnation at the time 500 years ago involved burning at the stake or other forms of execution of people they perceived to be heretics.

As Luther wrote:

If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?

[UntoHim]

Mr. E. Why do you think Hank Hanegraaff turned to the Orthodox Church instead of The Local Church of Witness Lee? He studied and actually participated in meetings/conferences of The Local Church for about 6 years, and as far as is publicly known, he never did a formal study or participated in the Orthodox Church for even 6 days. So why did he choose the Orthodox Church as a closer "expression of New Testament Christianity" than The Local Church? If, as Minoru Chen boasted, Hank's contact with the Local Church was "a life changing experience", why didn't he jump headfirst into "the glorious Church Life"? Instead, he chose to give the rest of his life to something closely related to "The Great Whore of Babylon"?
-

[Sons to Glory!]

In reading through a lot of this old thread, it is most curious why bro Hank would choose EOC! Personally, if I had a choice between only the LC and the EOC, I would certainly have to pick the LC! To me, there is much more reality of the indwelling Christ, which I consider to be the central part of the New Covenant, in the LC than in the EOC. But, I have to admit, I really don't know a whole bunch about the EOC - maybe I should try it out!

Jus' kidding!

I believe that without the experience of the indwelling Christ, all Christians are doing is something of a different version of Judaism/outward law keeping. To me, this is the biggest lack in a Christian's experience (including me) and the teaching in Christendom - that is, not hearing and knowing His Son in reality, who is now the Spirit dwelling in His believers and not something outward. On the spectrum of listening to His speaking/prompting/leading within and total outward following, I think the EOC is far to the latter extreme. Am I wrong?

But some do like the more outward, physical structure to help them with the unseen faith thing . . .

[Sons to Glory!]

I mentioned to a brother about this thread. He was in Elden Hall early on and stuck with the LC for almost 10 years I think. Before that, he was a S. Baptist minister. Here's what he said regarding Hank going to the EOC.
I am slightly familiar with the "answer man thingie", not sure I ever heard it tho. So he went with the Eastern Orthodox, huh? Well, strange as it may seem to you, it is not that really strange to me. When we "bailed" [from the LC] in 1975 (October), give me some more time, and I think I could give you the hours and minutes, of my withdrawal. LOL

We were SO OUT, not sure you can get More out than we were. We got involved with a large evangelistic/charismatic church right after that. The church was full of both. A really great time. The pastor had been an AG credentialed guy, Got his doctorate in Scotland, got out of the Air Force, came to Abq, to start a new church. However, cause he did have AG approval to start on, they "jerked" his credentials. Well, what is a pastor, without credentials?

At that time there was a rather large movement among many groups come into a "one-ness". Even had that in its name. Pastor Ron was heavily involved with the group. He even signed up to become certified as a priest in the Episcopal church, and went thru the whole process becoming a deacon, and moving on up to full ordination. Which he did, and because he was in the process, he was limited by their discipline to perform a lot of ministerial functions, so this is where I came in. I preached for him, and led communion, which was the greatest expression of communion we had ever experienced.

That church was a salvation for our kids, we could have fully lost them has we remained in the LC.

We got involved with some 'retreats" and functions of that order, and were high as a hog. I knew I was headed back to the pastorate. I taught an adult class there, which became about the largest in the church. It didn't start out that way. During the coffee time, a few guys and I were out on the patio, and I was sharing somethings with them, and we were out there past the time SS was happening.

The pastor happened to come outside,and see us, and said, We will have to find a room for you guys to meet in, they found a small room, which we outfilled the first Sunday, then a larger room that we totally filled, then the largest room outside the sanctuary and the dining hall to meet in and we filled that too.

We had Sandia (Los Alamos) corporation engineers, lawyers, and doctors, could not round up any Indian Chief tho as hard as we might try. (you know: Dr's, lawyers, and Indian chiefs) Maybe you are too young.

Anyway, I did not have any problems at all at that time with Liturgical thingies. I even wore a robe for a wedding. How about that? I guess with Hank and me, we were trying to get as far away as we could from the LC.

Now, in all fairness, as he said he really doesn't know much about Hank. But I find it interesting that he said he didn't have any issues with many of the outward things! And he also said they were trying to get as far away from the LC as they could. (I don't know that this would be my reaction, but that was his.)

So what do you think the Lord cherishes the most? Hearts that are toward him, or having the right way of meeting?

[Evangelical]

Mr. E. Why do you think Hank Hanegraaff turned to the Orthodox Church instead of The Local Church of Witness Lee?..
It sounds like a cry for help to me. He saw the outward traditions as more attractive I would say. The local churches were probably not old fashioned enough and he never experienced turning to his spirit for himself. He has joined many other Christians who are going through a process called re-traditionalization, of leaving modern churches for old ones. Personally I think they are searching for God and expect to find Him in a liturgical experience. If he knew what it meant to touch his spirit and worship God in spirit and truth, then he would not need to search for these traditional experiences.

[Evangelical]

In reading through a lot of this old thread, it is most curious why bro Hank would choose EOC!..

The EOC are focused on the indwelling Christ and the inner life I believe and in that way they are very similar to Nee and Lee's teachings. At least they hold onto a more mystical interpretation of the Scripture than Catholic and Protestant. But they do have many outward rituals as well, which seems contradictory, but I think they ascribe some sort of mysticism to the outward things as well.

[Kevin]

It sounds like a cry for help to me. He saw the outward traditions as more attractive I would say. The local churches were probably not old fashioned enough and he never experienced turning to his spirit for himself. He has joined many other Christians who are going through a process called re-traditionalization, of leaving modern churches for old ones. Personally I think they are searching for God and expect to find Him in a liturgical experience. If he knew what it meant to touch his spirit and worship God in spirit and truth, then he would not need to search for these traditional experiences.

Sorry, but you're not the so-called "Lord's Recovery". You've never recovered anything except copy-cat.

Witness Lee was a heretic.

[Sons to Glory!]

The EOC are focused on the indwelling Christ and the inner life I believe and in that way they are very similar to Nee and Lee's teachings. At least they hold onto a more mystical interpretation of the Scripture than Catholic and Protestant. But they do have many outward rituals as well, which seems contradictory, but I think they ascribe some sort of mysticism to the outward things as well.Really!? I never would have thought that. So you say they lean more toward the "Christian mystical" (which usually means a focus on the indwelling Christ)? I always thought they were just sort of the eastern version of the Roman Catholics . . .

[Ohio]

Sorry, but you're not the so-called "Lord's Recovery". You've never recovered anything except copy-cat.

There was a parallel movement in the US at the same time as the Recovery Movement among the Plymouth Brethren in England, and subsequently with Nee in China, and Lee in the US.

It was called the Restoration Movement and resulted in the Churches of Christ. There are many similarities. Both have long made claims of superiority as to the rest of the body of Christ, both judging the failures of the whole, and exalting themselves as uniquely superior. We could say the same of the Reformation Movement.

Yes indeed many traditions were shed and hearts returned again to His word and to Him as their first love. No doubt every one of these were a move of the Spirit of God. Yet over time all have merely created new traditions, settled into the old ways, and once again became puffed up by their achievements. This pattern usually only takes one generation, and future generations merely cling to their unique teachings and uplift their founder as special in the body.

[Ohio]

The EOC are focused on the indwelling Christ and the inner life I believe and in that way they are very similar to Nee and Lee's teachings. At least they hold onto a more mystical interpretation of the Scripture than Catholic and Protestant. But they do have many outward rituals as well, which seems contradictory, but I think they ascribe some sort of mysticism to the outward things as well.
The EOC has wrongly followed the Mosaic pattern of types, shadows, and figures. For example, the clothing of priests in Judaism is highly significant, down to the color, material, and weave of each piece. The same is true of the EOC, and its Ukrainian, Russian, Serbian, and Greek branches, etc.

The New Testament will have none of this. Whether a N.T. minister wears floor length robes, a custom Italian Ermenegildo Zegna, or faded Levi jeans means nothing at all. Not one single N.T. verse supports the use of symbolic clothing. These are all traditions which have becoming binding ordinances, none of which finds support in the New Covenant. The Mosaic pattern of types, shadows, and figures all pointed to Christ and were fulfilled by Him.

Why? Because Christ has come! He has fulfilled the Law! The days of "mystical interpretation" of Christian services should not exist. They ended with His incarnation. We now speak and teach and testify and worship in plain words about the reality, who is Christ our Lord.

[Sons to Glory!]

There was a parallel movement in the US at the same time as the Recovery Movement among the Plymouth Brethren in England, and subsequently with Nee in China, and Lee in the US.

It was called the Restoration Movement and resulted in the Churches of Christ. There are many similarities. Both have long made claims of superiority as to the rest of the body of Christ, both judging the failures of the whole, and exalting themselves as uniquely superior. We could say the same of the Reformation Movement.

Yes indeed many traditions were shed and hearts returned again to His word and to Him as their first love. No doubt every one of these were a move of the Spirit of God. Yet over time all have merely created new traditions, settled into the old ways, and once again became puffed up by their achievements. This pattern usually only takes one generation, and future generations merely cling to their unique teachings and uplift their founder as special in the body.The Restoration Movement came out of the 2nd Great Awakening in the early 1800s. A couple other groups came out besides the "Church of Christ," but they are the biggest by far.

And what you said (bolded above) I think is very true! In reading church history, that is what seems to happen. Basically, unless we humans are having a fresh experience and seeing of Christ, we will just resort to forms and symbols - and especially the next gen. It could be argued that the so called "Pilgrim Church" (I prefer "Primitive Church" so as to avoid confusion), as expounded on by Broadbent in his excellent account of the same name, had a superior longevity than all the formalized groups. These ones (called by various names - or no names - over 1500+ years) focused on Christ and His word. Period.

And we're getting to see what happens when the focus is not on Christ and His word firsthand in the LC!

[UntoHim]

Mr. E. Why do you think Hank Hanegraaff turned to the Orthodox Church instead of The Local Church of Witness Lee?
It sounds like a cry for help to me. He saw the outward traditions as more attractive I would say. The local churches were probably not old fashioned enough and he never experienced turning to his spirit for himself....If he knew what it meant to touch his spirit and worship God in spirit and truth, then he would not need to search for these traditional experiences.

Outward traditions? Almost nobody has more outward traditions than the Local Church of Witness Lee. - 7 feasts, trainings, conferences, prophesying meetings, morning watch, Calling on the Lord, Pray Reading....the list goes on! "Old fashioned" you say? Heck, the Local Church is not much behind the Amish in the old fashioned category. I mean, the colorless garb that they make the FTTer's wear makes some of the Mormons look kinda hip:p Seriously, we've just recently heard from someone that says that one of the big reasons they are not going to attend the FTT is because of the drab uniform.

So Hank was among you guys for 6 long years and didn't know how to touch his spirit? Really? This sounds more like a problem with the teachers more than the student. Well maybe if Hanegraaff had spent more time learning the Local Church lingo and traditions instead writing amicus briefs and publishing driveling, pathetic retractions, he would be standing, pumping his first and calling "OOOOOHHHH, LLLOOOOORRRRRD, JEEEEEESUS as I write this post.
-

[Evangelical]

So they are not going to the FTT because they care too much about their appearance . That says more about them than the training doesn't it?

[awareness]

CRI can't claim to be against Christian cults any longer, if Hank is their example.

First they said that Lee's local church was a cult. Then they said they were wrong. Then Hank joins another cult.

CRI is now actually cult friendly.

[Evangelical]

As much as people would like to think that Hank chose the EOC to "get away from" the local churches, that is probably not the case. He chose the EOC because of Watchman Nee's teachings and a desire to be made God. For this reason a better question to ask is why did he not stay in evangelicalism? (because they don't teach about becoming God).

[Kevin]

(because they don't teach about becoming God).

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith. :violinist:

[Ohio]

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith.

Yet not a single verse to support such a teaching.

All they got are a few lines from Athanasius.

[awareness]

As much as people would like to think that Hank chose the EOC to "get away from" the local churches, that is probably not the case. He chose the EOC because of Watchman Nee's teachings and a desire to be made God. For this reason a better question to ask is why did he not stay in evangelicalism? (because they don't teach about becoming God).
Oh! So Hank thinks the EO is better at theosis than the local church. And when has Hank not been wrong?

[Sons to Glory!]

So do Nee's teachings promote theosis (I guess I've learned a new word)?

My thinking is that most of us (i.e., Christians) don't have much of a revelation of who we really have been made in Christ. Most Christian speakings I have an opportunity to listen to on radio or TV are more concerned with the redemption aspect of the good news, and then what we must do afterward - but they preach it mostly in an Old Covenant way. It is rare when one of these ones will expound well on "what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints."

There is so, so much more to be seen in scripture regarding who we really are in Him! My current understanding of this revelation in scripture is we are being made one in life and nature with God (e.g., John 17), but that we do not become part of the omnipotent Godhead, right?

But from what I've read on here, many think WL crossed over that line - is that correct?

[UntoHim]

Actually, Witness Lee did something much worse than simply crossing over the line - he tried to move the line itself....and then claim to anyone who would listen "this is the line of orthodoxy...all you poor, poor Christians have been getting it all wrong for over 2,000 years. The line is actually not there...it is over here, where I say it is!" Of course Lee was not the only one who tried to pull a fast one on us gullible American Christians...but he is the one we are all most familiar with. I only mention this to head certain people off at the pass before they cry out "that guy over there said something just like that!" or "that guy over there taught the exact same thing and you didn't call him a heretic!". So, don't say I didn't warn you....wait for it....here it comes...;)
-

[awareness]

Hank has gone to the EO to become God. What will he be like when he comes back? Will he no longer be The Bible Answer Man? Will he perchance be The God Answer Man?

Basically, I guess, if you're gonna go for Orthodoxy, skip Witness Lee and go to The Father of Orthodoxy, Athanasius_of_Alexandria. You know, who quipped, "He was made human so that he might make us gods," way back in the 4th century, when Christianity was made the state religion.

Christians were becoming gods alright. And like Witness Lee became obsessed with having the authority of God.

Maybe Hank will come back with that authority.

Thanks for heading us off at the pass bro Untohim.

[Sons to Glory!]

Do we think Nee taught theosis? And who might be the big promoters of that be?

And does anyone really know what we shall be (as the scripture sayeth - "Eye has not seen nor ear hear nor has it come up in the heart of man . . .")?

[Evangelical]

Yet not a single verse to support such a teaching.

All they got are a few lines from Athanasius.

Actually a number of early church fathers mentioned it, including those close to the disciples of the apostles.

Do we really think if it was so heretical they would have talked about it in such a candid way? I don't. In fact, during the time when the Trinity was defined and real heretics were hunted down and killed, no one thought to mention the "heresy" of theosis/man becoming God. The simple reason is it was not a heresy.

I wonder what Jesus thinks every time a key teaching and blessing of God is called a heresy by those who know no better. It might remind us of the Sadducee who denied the resurrection.

[Evangelical]

Certain individuals would like to make the claim that theosis is a heretical teaching. This is not the case. In fact I can show that even the reformer's Calvin and Luther believed in it.

If we look into the early church teachings, it becomes very clear that deification was a fundamental aspect of the doctrine of salvation.

I will start with a quote from Calvin:

Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us. (Commentary 2 Peter 1:4)

This is taken from "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin.

Now I know that Calvin qualifies the term later, and its meaning is not quite the same as that used in the EOC, but so does Witness Lee. So why is Lee called a heretic and not Calvin?

Using published literature, I can also show that Lee's teachings are more Orthodox about theosis than many evangelicals (who deny theosis).

There are two main ideas found in the early church:
1. Jesus died so that man can become God
2. Even if man did not sin, Jesus still would have died for the purpose of making men God.

These ideas were never declared heretical by anyone. Even the reformers, Luther, Calvin and others did not say they were heretical.

Luther and Calvin both affirm the teaching of Athanasius or something very similar to it.

Gregory of Nazianzus was one of three Cappadocian Fathers who were instrumental in helping define the doctrine of the Trinity against heresies.

He wrote:

While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man.

[Evangelical]

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith. :violinist:

The historical evidence is overwhelming that deification was a fundamental aspect of the doctrine of salvation in the time of the early church. Those who defined the Trinity against heresies all believed in it. We may say that salvation without deification is not really salvation at all, to emphasize the important that it held in the early church.

[Ohio]

Actually a number of early church fathers mentioned it, including those close to the disciples of the apostles.

Do we really think if it was so heretical they would have talked about it in such a candid way? I don't. In fact, during the time when the Trinity was defined and real heretics were hunted down and killed, no one thought to mention the "heresy" of theosis/man becoming God. The simple reason is it was not a heresy.

I wonder what Jesus thinks every time a key teaching and blessing of God is called a heresy by those who know no better. It might remind us of the Sadducee who denied the resurrection.
These same church "fathers" gave us monasticism, the distorted oneness of the RCC, and the bishopric hierarchy of Popes, who then plunged the Western world into the Dark Ages. All I am saying here is that the teachings of the church fathers must be carefully examined against the scriptures.

How can you, as did W. Lee, discredit and dismiss the book of James, numerous Psalms and Proverbs, and then tell us to accept theosis, the teaching that man becomes God/god? What good fruit has ever come out of this aberrant teaching? The love of God exhibited on the cross of Christ is the highest gospel mankind will ever need.

I find it highly suspicious that W. Lee introduced these so-called "high peak" teachings when he did, since the motive was to divert everyone's attention from the failures of the "new way" and those serious scandals taking place in his ministry, especially the abuse and molesting of sisters by his son Philip Lee. Ever hear of "Wagging The Dog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog)?"

[Ohio]

There are two main ideas found in the early church:
1. Jesus died so that man can become God
2. Even if man did not sin, Jesus still would have died for the purpose of making men God.

The greatest theologian in church history was the apostle Paul.

Would he not have included this teaching under the anointing Spirit if it were true?

[Nell]

Hey, E—

Are you God? Or, are you god? If not, why not? What will it take to put you over the line? When will you become g/God? How will it happen? Will you have to die first?

We need details. I can’t find anything in the Bible that explains how Evangelical is going to become g/God. There’s nothing about ANYONE who actually became g/God. Or is that new?

.

[Evangelical]

The greatest theologian in church history was the apostle Paul. Would he not have included this teaching under the anointing Spirit if it were true?
The same argument could be applied to the Trinity couldn't it? It is significant that the same people who confirmed the doctrine of the Trinity also believed in theosis. Very hard to argue against, without weakening our belief in the orthodoxy of the Trinity. There is actually a good chance Athanasius would have declared you to be a heretic if you don't believe in it.

Those who believed in the full divinity of Christ in opposition to the Arian heresy such as Athanasius, also believed in the purpose of God to "make men God". Basil the Great and Gregory also and other early church people of note.

The reason I believe is, that if we believe in the full divinity of Christ, and if we believe in the sonship Paul talks about through Christ, then the sons of God (believers) should also possess the divinity. Yet it seems that only evangelicals believe that we become sons of God yet don't actually look like sons of God. "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely" they say. Their presentation of salvation is to escape a scary place called hell rather than to obtain an inheritance of being conformed to Christ's image. First they have to make people afraid of hell, and then preach the gospel so they are drawn to it through fear.

In Romans 8:29 it is clear that being conformed to Christ's image is the goal of salvation. Now since Christ is God, we may say that the goal of salvation is to be conformed to the image of God.

The other clear link is 2 Peter 1:3–4 as well.

It seems that Paul also implies it in Ephesians 1 when he talks about sonship. I think it is implied in Ephesians 1 where Paul teaches us about sonship with an inheritance. Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Paul also talks about being filled with the fullness of God in Ephesians 3:19.

I think if we look hard enough and keep an open mind we can see that the beliefs of the early church fathers are not in contradiction with the apostles. If we think they are, then it raises doubts about the orthodoxy of the Trinity doctrine as well and even the Creeds such as the Athanasius creed (if we value them, many churches do).

[Evangelical]

Hey, E—
Are you God? Or, are you god? If not, why not? What will it take to put you over the line? When will you become g/God? How will it happen? Will you have to die first?
We need details. I can’t find anything in the Bible that explains how Evangelical is going to become g/God. There’s nothing about ANYONE who actually became g/God. Or is that new?
Paul wrote we don't really know what we shall become, there is still some mystery about it.

We get new glorified bodies like Jesus's, that are immortal. That's a "god" by anyone's definition (especially Hollywood's). To me it means partaking of God's divine nature. Anyway I see these questions as irrelevant details to the purpose of salvation just as calvinism vs arminism is irrelevant to salvation.

[Evangelical]

These same church "fathers" gave us monasticism, the distorted oneness of the RCC, and the bishopric hierarchy of Popes, who then plunged the Western world into the Dark Ages. All I am saying here is that the teachings of the church fathers must be carefully examined against the scriptures.

How can you, as did W. Lee, discredit and dismiss the book of James, numerous Psalms and Proverbs, and then tell us to accept theosis, the teaching that man becomes God/god? What good fruit has ever come out of this aberrant teaching? The love of God exhibited on the cross of Christ is the highest gospel mankind will ever need.

I find it highly suspicious that W. Lee introduced these so-called "high peak" teachings when he did, since the motive was to divert everyone's attention from the failures of the "new way" and those serious scandals taking place in his ministry, especially the abuse and molesting of sisters by his son Philip Lee. Ever hear of "Wagging The Dog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog)?"


It's true that many church fathers had peculiar beliefs. Collectively however they paint a picture that the doctrine of theosis or "man becoming god" was not so heretical as many today say it is.

[Evangelical]

John Piper seems partial to the teaching, he explains it in terms of glorification, and I suppose he must, so that he does not draw fire from fellow evangelicals, but neither does he discount it and neither does he try to discredit early church fathers like Athanasius (like Ohio has):

Finally, we must not assume that old books, which say some startling things, are necessarily wrong, but may in fact have something glorious to teach us that we never dreamed

Athanasius has helped me go deeper here by unsettling me.

His language of deification forces me to think more deeply and worship more profoundly

I am thankful to God that I did not run away from the word “deification” in Athanasius. There is here “a grace the magnitude of which our minds can never fully grasp.”49 Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father. And thank you, Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/contending-for-our-all

I don't know if it is poor editing or intentional, but what surprised me was his last sentence which seems as if he is praying to Athanasius to thank him.

Piper's words reflects the problem that many evangelicals face - an apparent inner conflict over accepting Athanasius sometimes but not at other times. A hesitation to accept the early fathers with open arms, even though they stand upon and declare the orthodoxy of their doctrines, established centuries ago. Athanasius is too orthodox and important to all Christians to be declared an absolute heretic, so Piper must somehow explain Athanasius in light of evangelical doctrine. Which is a shame, because it should be the other way around - evangelical doctrine should be willing to adapt to the wisdom of the early church theologians, to bring it back in line with what almost all Christians believed in the past, including Luther and Calvin, and CS Lewis.

[Sons to Glory!]

Church fathers - okay, fine to review - but we need specific scripture! (I can think of a few NT passages that would seem to support moving the needle toward the god end of the spectrum, but I wonder what others might reference. . .)

[Nell]

Paul wrote we don't really know what we shall become, there is still some mystery about it.

We get new glorified bodies like Jesus's, that are immortal. That's a "god" by anyone's definition (especially Hollywood's). To me it means partaking of God's divine nature. Anyway I see these questions as irrelevant details to the purpose of salvation just as calvinism vs arminism is irrelevant to salvation.

But, are you God? Have you “become”? Yes or no? Not hard questions.

Anyone’s definition? Do you speak for everyone? Even Hollywood!!?? Wow! You might be god.

So...details are irrelevant when you don’t have any. Got it. To become something... anything ... you need to ...know how...? Otherwise, what you’re preaching is empty words. “Poof!” You’re god! Or, “Poof! You’re a heretic!”


.

[Ohio]

It's true that many church fathers had peculiar beliefs. Collectively however they paint a picture that the doctrine of theosis or "man becoming god" was not so heretical as many today say it is.
There is no "painted picture" of man becoming God. All sorts of ancients were "picking and choosing" what they wanted to "paint" with from the writings of the Church Fathers.

The RCC picked up on what they preferred and what did that give us? They built their Papal hierarchy using the writings of the church "father" Ignatius rather than the writings of scripture.

Evangelical, what then is our standard? What is our "constitution?" What is the basis of the truths we hold dear? If the writings of the church fathers rises to the level of scripture, then all sorts of heresy will ensue.

Why is it when the church somewhere or sometime falls into layers of tradition, losing sight of the truths, longing to return to the simplicity of Christ, they ALWAYS go back to the Bible. Whether during the Restoration, or the Reformation, or the Recovery, or the Pentecostal, or the Charismatic, etc. movement, each initiated by the Spirit of God, the Spirit NEVER directs these saints to return to the "church fathers?"

[awareness]

It's true that many church fathers had peculiar beliefs. Collectively however they paint a picture that the doctrine of theosis or "man becoming god" was not so heretical as many today say it is.
When has man never wanted to be God? Adam and Eve became "as one of us." If we inherit their sin, then we also inherit that.

So why try to be what we already are? What, if we call on Jesus enough does it 'call' away our flesh?

And I don't think that many today think it's heretical as much as they think it's not possible.

But not Hank. He converted for deification -- or maybe he just likes silly hats. Either way, I wouldn't trust any answer from the Answer Man ... even if he comes back a Christian mystic ... in fact, specially if he comes back, or turns into, a mystic.

But to be fair. Hank's battle with cancer may be behind his conversion. It sure would scare the beejeebies out of me. I'd prolly be inclined towards the most assured Orthodoxy, like the EO, too. That is if I feared death. Cancer can hit any of us at any time, regardless of age. It can kill the body.

So let's say deification is possible. If cancer kills the body and we're only partially deified, do we only get a partially immortalized body?

Just wondering why the push to become deified? And if it's maybe just an illusion, a mirage in this bleak desert of a world, beyond the reach of anything except the imagination.

[Sons to Glory!]

SCRIPTURES FOLKS - GIVE US SCRIPTURES regarding theosis - not what some other man has thought about it!!! :thumbsup: <not Trump thumbs LOL
And here's a question - does God ever share His glory with us?:sun:

[Evangelical]

But, are you God? Have you “become”? Yes or no? Not hard questions.
Anyone’s definition? Do you speak for everyone? Even Hollywood!!?? Wow! You might be god.
So...details are irrelevant when you don’t have any. Got it. To become something... anything ... you need to ...know how...? Otherwise, what you’re preaching is empty words. “Poof!” You’re god! Or, “Poof! You’re a heretic!”

Scripture defines a god as one who is immortal in Psalm 82:6-7. It also describes a god as one who is a son of the most high.

Why do people take issue with men calling themselves god, if they call themselves sons of God? Does not the warning that they shall "die like men" apply both to "god" as it does to "children of God" in Psalm 82:6-7?

[Evangelical]

SCRIPTURES FOLKS - GIVE US SCRIPTURES regarding theosis - not what some other man has thought about it!!! :thumbsup: <not Trump thumbs LOL
And here's a question - does God ever share His glory with us?:sun:

Psalm 82:6-7 shows that children of God can be considered god because we can see that verse 6 uses the term "gods" and "children of God" together.

John 10:34-36 Jesus shows the correct interpretation of Psalm 82:6-7 - that it is not wrong to say we are god if we say we are sons of God. Jesus used it to refute the claim that he was blaspheming.

If some want to interpret Psalm 82:6-7 as a warning/judgement on any who want to be god, then they must equally apply this rule to the other part of verse 6 which refers to "sons of the most high" or rendered as "children of God" in some translations.

In other words, it is hypocritical to criticize those who say we are or become god, if they themselves think they are children of God. According to the Jews and Jesus's statements in John 10:34-36, it is saying pretty much the same thing.

Today evangelicals like to use Psalm 82:6-7 as a warning, supposing that it means we cannot be god. However if we do some research into how the early church interpreted this passage, and in light of Jesus's words in John 10, we can find that it does not have a negative meaning.

See this journal article (THE EARLIEST PATRISTIC INTERPRETATIONS OF PSALM 82, JEWISH ANTECEDENTS, AND THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN DEIFICATION
Carl Mosser
The Journal of Theological Studies
NEW SERIES, Vol. 56, No. 1 (APRIL 2005), pp. 30-74):

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23969235


close examination of the earliest extant interpretations of Psalm 82 in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria demonstrates that the chief significance of the psalm was its declaration of divine sonship. The psalm was understood to predict distinctive aspects of Pauline and Johannine soteriology. Moreover, patristic interpretations adapted antecedent traditions that read Ps. 82:1, 6—7 as summarizing salvation history from Adam's fall to the eschatological restoration of the immortality and glory he lost

The author is professor of Christian theology at Gateway Seminary (Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary).

[Nell]

Scripture defines a god as one who is immortal in Psalm 82:6-7. It also describes a god as one who is a son of the most high.

Why do people take issue with men calling themselves god, if they call themselves sons of God? Does not the warning that they shall "die like men" apply both to "god" as it does to "children of God" in Psalm 82:6-7?

So I guess that's a "no." You, Evangelical, have not become "a god." And, Scripture doesn't define a god as one who is immortal in Psalm 82:6-7. The word “immortal” does not appear in the entire chapter of Psalm 82. Oops!

Psalm 82 King James Version (KJV)
82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

But it does beg the question: If you won't be a god until after you die, how can you 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82:3-4 refers to "gods" who are living and acting as a judge or someone with some authority over others.

Consider this opinion:
“The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.” https://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

This opinion actually fits the context of Psalm 82 as an appointed judge who represents God in this world. They are not immortal but absolutely mortal.

[Evangelical]

Jews have a different interpretation - that it refers to angels in God's court and not human judges at all. Anyhow.

The opinions of early church fathers were quite different. They say that "sons of the most high" referred to Christians, the church. These men lived about the same time the New Testament was written or soon after. They were not only important theologians in Christian orthodoxy but revered as Saints in early church councils. They are credited for defending the Christian faith against heresies (Arianism etc). In regards to the Trinity and the canon of scripture which we take for granted today, they were regarded as representing the majority of orthodox Christian opinion at the time.

Even though gotquestions is often a reliable resource, I believe the journal article by the baptist Professor Carl Mosser carries more weight. It shows that the more formal doctrine of theosis in the EOC comes from what was a common interpretation of Psalm 82 at the time, rather than some vain imagination or heresy of the early fathers.

So when Witness Lee writes about the purpose of salvation being to "become god" he is not too far off the mark, his view is in alignment with the "earliest extant interpretations of Psalm 82".

For this reason I believe Psalm 82:6-7 is about immortality of the believers, and this is a more accurate interpretation because we are interpreting it as an ancient Christian might have.

[Nell]

...For this reason I believe Psalm 82:6-7 is about immortality of the believers, and this is a more accurate interpretation because we are interpreting it as an ancient Christian might have.

Again I ask: If you won't be a god until after you die, how can you 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82:3-4 refers to "gods" who are living and acting as a judge or someone with some authority over others.

Living men are being given specific details on what to do with the authority or oversight given them on a case by case basis: defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy; deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

Do these simple instructions need "interpretation" or some kind of parsing by...anyone? Can we not simply read and obey? 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NRSV) I understand this and I'm not "god" either. I didn't have to die to understand these scriptures.

Witness Lee spent his career making people dependent on himself for "interpretation" of Scripture, rather than dependent on God Himself. Add Lee to the list of "church fathers" with a leaky interpretation of Scripture that complicates the simple Word of God.

...

[Ohio]

Jews have a different interpretation - Anyhow.
The opinions of early church fathers were quite different ...
So when Witness Lee writes ...
For this reason I believe ...
And this is a more accurate interpretation ...
Because we are interpreting it as an ancient Christian might have.

So there you have it folks ... if you squeeze real hard ... find the interpretation you like ... get a bigger shoehorn ... locate some church "father" to authenticate ... push, push, push ... digging on-line for a source to confirm ... throw in a WL quote to persuade the faithful ... and voila ... you have it! All LC'ers become God!

And what to make of poor, poor, Christianity? Hopeless and helpless, degraded and denominated, stuck in the rut of the low gospel of His love displayed on the cross.

[awareness]

Know ye not that ye are gods. Deification isn't necessary. We're already gods, all of us, even those stiff-necked Pharisees.

But okay. Some argue for deification. So just who has been deified? Can we name some?

[UntoHim]

The reason I believe is, that if we believe in the full divinity of Christ, and if we believe in the sonship Paul talks about through Christ, then the sons of God (believers) should also possess the divinity.
Pretty good Mr E. This is a biblical understanding/presentation. So why go beyond this? Why jump from "possess the divinity" (a biblical concept backed by "partakers of the divine nature" as taught in 2 Peter 1:4) to "becoming the divinity" as taught by Witness Lee? There is always an abject danger in going beyond what is written. In the case of the Local Church, it issued in the craziness of a bunch of gullible young Christians running around proclaiming "Hallelujah, I'm a baby God!" Of course it got even worse (and who could think that was even possible?) when those same people ran around shouting "Praise the Lord, I'm a Witness Lee tape recorder!"

Yet it seems that only evangelicals believe that we become sons of God yet don't actually look like sons of God. "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely" they say....
Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).
Mr E. you are clueless on what is taught in the majority of evangelical/orthodox churches. I know this because most of your posts show that your knowledge/understanding comes from Google, and not from your personal study and observation. What evangelical/orthodox Christians teach that "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely"? This kind of nonsense comes straight from the mouth of Witness Lee, who was decidedly ignorant of what is actually taught and believed in mainstream Christianity. Lee was too busy calling his brothers and sisters in Christ "Christless", "mooing cows" and "daughters of the great whore" to take a few minutes and actually know for a fact what is taught and believed.

The bottom line question/contention has been brought forth by Nell and some others. "SHOW ME! SHOW ME YOU'RE BECOMING GOD BY YOUR WORDS AND ACTIONS." If this kind of teaching is biblical and healthy, surely the main purveyor of it, after 60-70 years, should have become something very close to becoming "God in life and nature". So let's put the life and times of Witness Lee to the eyes, ears and nose test, shall we? On second thought, I don't have the time right now to give even a partial list of all the evidence. Actually, many of the threads and posts on this forum cover this evidence in vivid detail. If Witness Lee's teaching was biblical we wouldn't be here in this forum today...we would all be too busy expressing the life and nature that we had become, now wouldn't we?
-

[awareness]

Okay. Amendment to my post #299 : Can we name one?

[Ohio]

It seems that Paul also implies it in Ephesians 1 when he talks about sonship. I think it is implied in Ephesians 1 where Paul teaches us about sonship with an inheritance. Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Evan, I really wish you take some time to study Paul's use of the Greek word "huiothesia (https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/adopted-by-god)." W. Lee has long used this one truth to condemn all Christians and to exalt his own ministry. We have discussed this repeatedly on the forum, but unfortunately you are so imbibed with Lee-isms that you can no longer hear.

This word huiothesia is unique to Paul, and it emphasizes the legal rights of sons as heirs to our Heavenly Father. Sorry if this is too complicated for you, since you refuse to explore the depths of the riches here. (Rom 11.33-36) Without the Spirit of God inspiring the apostle Paul to "adopt" (pun intended) this unique word, our understanding of the new birth at our regeneration would be extremely limited.

Instead you prefer to run around proclaiming yourself a "baby god," all the while condemning the rest of the body of Christ for reducing their status to the "mere signing of a legal adoption agreement" and worse. Do you really think that your arrogant attitude towards the truths of scripture and the condemnation of all other children of God will help you grow to become a full-grown son, qualifying as a legal heir to all God's wealth?

The following quotation from the above link manifests some of the riches of Christ in Paul's ministry. (Yet completely missed by W. Lee.)
“Adoption” clearly indicates that a Christian is a member of God’s family. In the Roman culture, the adopted son or daughter had four major changes: a change of family, a change of name, a change of home, and a change of responsibilities. Most importantly, by using the word “adoption,” God emphasizes that salvation is permanent for the Christian, which is why it appears only in the Church Epistles. Some versions translate huiothesia as “sonship,” but we believe that is not as good as “adoption.” While it is true that someone adopted into the family attains sonship (the status of a son), “adoption” is more accurate to the Greek meaning of the word, and it correctly expresses the fact that the adopted child is permanently placed in the family.

Birth seems so much more desirable than adoption that it is fair to ask why God would even use “adoption.” The answer is that the Romans recognized that when a baby was born, “you got what you got,” whether you liked it or not. This would include the sex of the child, birthmarks, etc. Thus, according to Roman law, a naturally born baby could be disowned from the family. However, people adopting a child knew exactly what they were getting, and no one adopted a child unless that specific child was wanted as a family member, so according to law an adopted child could not be disowned. He or she was permanently added to the family. Many early believers were Roman citizens, and using the word “adoption” was one of God’s ways to let the Church know that He chose the children brought into His family, and they could not be taken from it. The Roman historian William M. Ramsay writes: “The Roman-Syrian Law-Book…where a formerly prevalent Greek law had persisted under the Roman Empire—well illustrates this passage of the Epistle. It actually lays down the principle that a man can never put away an adopted son, and that he cannot put away a real son without good ground. It is remarkable that the adopted son should have a stronger position than the son by birth, yet it was so.”

[Drake]

Okay. Amendment to my post #299 : Can we name one?

I'll bite.

The no brainer answer is Jesus.... He is the Firstborn among many brethren.

Yet, I am sure you mean who besides Him. Clearly, every regenerated born again believer joined to the Lord is one S/spirit.... therefore, theosis, union with God, has transpired in every spirit regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Drake

[awareness]

I'll bite.

The no brainer answer is Jesus.... He is the Firstborn among many brethren.

Yet, I am sure you mean who besides Him. Clearly, every regenerated born again believer joined to the Lord is one S/spirit.... therefore, theosis, union with God, has transpired in every spirit regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Drake
Of course Jesus. But I like your take on theosis. Essentially, we don't do a thing. It's vouchsafed grace. And we're all little gods even if we don't know a thing about theosis. The fruit will speak for it.

Hey on a side note. I just got an email from Hank. Because I'm such a great supporter, he says, he offered me a copy of a new book :

“This is a new challenge from a different breed of critics who are using their instant credibility and insider’s knowledge of theology, the Bible, church history, even apologetics, to debunk the faith they once believed and promoted. They have taken aim at the foundations of Christianity, including God, the Scriptures, miracles and the supernatural, and Christianity’s perceived inherent prohibition on free inquiry.”
—from Why People Stop Believing,
by Paul Chamberlain

I took his offer, but stopped at : "Your Donation Amount ( $ )"

I've never donated, and have shown no support for CRI ever, except for being on his email list.

Why do people stop believing? Maybe because Christianity has become about money, like Hank wants in this email.

Methinks our brother Hank is in need of theosis. Maybe he received the Spirit, but it looks like he's not living by it.

And that puts the EO on the spot. Just how does joining the EO deify new members? It's not likely to be accomplish there by calling on the Lord and pray-reading. They must have more tried and true methods.

Do we have any members out here that left the LC and joined the Eastern Orthodox? who might be able to give us an inside take?

[Sons to Glory!]

So I think what Evangelical said about us being sons of God bares some further looking into. Are we sons? Sure, as too many scriptures say this.

How about God's glory (a question I believe no one has addressed)? Does He give us that? A king gives his children his glory. Colossians 1:27 says, "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Christ is in us, as too many verses state. For instance: "When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me."

If you go to Romans 8 you see that the Triune God is in us (vs 10-11), Father, Son & Spirit.

Ephesians tells us we are the temple, a dwelling place of God in Spirit. Do these verses say we become God? Not exactly. But elsewhere in Ephesians it talks about the riches of His inheritance in the saints.

Why is He our Father? Because He loves us and wants us as His family.

Again, regarding the glory question, John 17 has Jesus praying that "the glory you have given Me, I have given them." And then all the talk about "You in Me and I in them, that they may be one in Us."

"As He is so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) Another thing Evangelical said had to do with Jesus being the prototype (the 2nd man & Last Adam). As a Man, He was nothing short of all we were supposed to be, right? He said, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." Jesus came to introduce the world to the Father. Why the word "Father?" He wants many sons brought to glory!

So where do you draw the line considering these things?

[Evangelical]

I wrote previously:

Yet it seems that only evangelicals believe that we become sons of God yet don't actually look like sons of God. "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely" they say....
Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

UntoHim claimed I don't know about evangelical teaching but I can find many printed examples of evangelical teaching that emphasize the legal adoption:

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=59273&columnid=5774


Believers Are Legally Adopted

So how is it that we are adopted by God? How has it come about, and what does it involve?

Adoption is a legal act of God on our behalf

In the same way, adoption is legal language in Scripture.

And adoption as a son in Roman law was something very specific. Adoption as a son in Roman law meant that you had the right to the name and the citizenship of the person who adopted you, and the right to inherit his property.


It's all about legal, legal, Roman law this, Roman law that. Who knew, that God was bound to obey Roman adoption law? God did a "legal act on our behalf", as if He is somehow bound by the Roman law at the time.

There is no mention of deification, which goes hand in hand with adoption, because it is the purpose of adoption.

In other words, evangelicals believe they are legally adopted, but they don't believe they have the inheritance of deification - there is no mention of it. Piper tried to explain how deification is what the evangelicals call glorification, but to be evangelicals don't really mention glorification much either.

This is like believing in the act of marriage as signing a legal document, but not believing in the consummation of marriage. The whole purpose of marriage is consummation, and the purpose of salvation is deification.

A proper understanding of adoption as sons is that it is the Holy Spirit who adopts us as sons and also deifies us (call it glorification if you will), and not some legal agreement from Roman law whiuch God had to perform some "legal act" on our behalf. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in the article I posted above. A mainstream evangelical understanding of salvation is that the legal adoption is God's real purpose, and the "glorification" is a nice blessing in the end. In contrast, the early church believed that adoption and deification went hand in hand and adoption was for the purpose of the deification/glorification.

[Evangelical]

Evan, I really wish you take some time to study Paul's use of the Greek word "huiothesia (https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/adopted-by-god)." W. Lee has long used this one truth to condemn all Christians and to exalt his own ministry. We have discussed this repeatedly on the forum, but unfortunately you are so imbibed with Lee-isms that you can no longer hear.

This word huiothesia is unique to Paul, and it emphasizes the legal rights of sons as heirs to our Heavenly Father. Sorry if this is too complicated for you, since you refuse to explore the depths of the riches here. (Rom 11.33-36) Without the Spirit of God inspiring the apostle Paul to "adopt" (pun intended) this unique word, our understanding of the new birth at our regeneration would be extremely limited.

Instead you prefer to run around proclaiming yourself a "baby god," all the while condemning the rest of the body of Christ for reducing their status to the "mere signing of a legal adoption agreement" and worse. Do you really think that your arrogant attitude towards the truths of scripture and the condemnation of all other children of God will help you grow to become a full-grown son, qualifying as a legal heir to all God's wealth?

The following quotation from the above link manifests some of the riches of Christ in Paul's ministry. (Yet completely missed by W. Lee.)

The simple reason why the "Roman law" interpretation is wrong (if taken as fact), is that we are not adopted under Roman law and neither has God ever been bound by Roman law. Gentiles especially.

This misunderstanding I believe is because people confuse a fact with the Roman adoption law analogy Paul was making.

The fact is that we are born of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23).

This misunderstanding is shown in the article I posted previously which says:

"Adoption is a legal act of God on our behalf"

So God, the one who makes the law, had to "do a legal act", doesn't really make sense considering that God is the ultimate authority, not someone bound by Roman adoption law.

Secondly, "adoption.. on our behalf" doesn't make much sense either, because it implies that we had to adopt ourselves?

The blessings of adoption are correct, but people have mistakenly taken the analogy of adoption and misapplied it as fact, suggesting, as that article above does, that God "had to do some legal things on our behalf". God was not doing anything legal - the reality is that believers are reborn (born again) of incorruptable seed by the Holy Spirit, making them sons of God in spiritual reality not merely as an agreement under law.

[Evangelical]

Pretty good Mr E. This is a biblical understanding/presentation. So why go beyond this? Why jump from "possess the divinity" (a biblical concept backed by "partakers of the divine nature" as taught in 2 Peter 1:4) to "becoming the divinity" as taught by Witness Lee? There is always an abject danger in going beyond what is written. In the case of the Local Church, it issued in the craziness of a bunch of gullible young Christians running around proclaiming "Hallelujah, I'm a baby God!" Of course it got even worse (and who could think that was even possible?) when those same people ran around shouting "Praise the Lord, I'm a Witness Lee tape recorder!"

I am not sure how Lee went "beyond this", I never got the sense that he did.

Lee defines "becoming divine" as receiving another life through regeneration, which is added to our natural life. That sounds like partaking of the divine nature to me.

Lee no where teaches that the human essence becomes divine which would be heresy. Humanity stays humanity, and divinity stays divinity.
As long as human atom particles stay human and God particles (pun intended) stay God, there is no heresy.

And even though Lee believed in man becoming God, unlike John Piper, I don't know that Lee ever prayed to Saint Athanasius to thank him for it.

Here is an ultimate hypocrisy:

Evangelicals love Athanasius and CS Lewis too much to call them absolute heretics about "man becoming God" and Athanasius never explained himself fully by what he meant by that. Yet they will criticize Lee for every little suggestion that "man becomes God" when there are pages of material written to clarify the intended meaning that removes any doubt about it.

[Evangelical]

Of course Jesus. But I like your take on theosis. Essentially, we don't do a thing. It's vouchsafed grace. And we're all little gods even if we don't know a thing about theosis. The fruit will speak for it.

Hey on a side note. I just got an email from Hank. Because I'm such a great supporter, he says, he offered me a copy of a new book :

“This is a new challenge from a different breed of critics who are using their instant credibility and insider’s knowledge of theology, the Bible, church history, even apologetics, to debunk the faith they once believed and promoted. They have taken aim at the foundations of Christianity, including God, the Scriptures, miracles and the supernatural, and Christianity’s perceived inherent prohibition on free inquiry.”
—from Why People Stop Believing,
by Paul Chamberlain

I took his offer, but stopped at : "Your Donation Amount ( $ )"

I've never donated, and have shown no support for CRI ever, except for being on his email list.

Why do people stop believing? Maybe because Christianity has become about money, like Hank wants in this email.

Methinks our brother Hank is in need of theosis. Maybe he received the Spirit, but it looks like he's not living by it.

And that puts the EO on the spot. Just how does joining the EO deify new members? It's not likely to be accomplish there by calling on the Lord and pray-reading. They must have more tried and true methods.

Do we have any members out here that left the LC and joined the Eastern Orthodox? who might be able to give us an inside take?

The EO probably acquires divinity by praying to Saint Athanasius, John Piper seems to have found this secret as well when he prayed:

Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father. And thank you, Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

It's the Holy Trinity of divinity - Athanasius, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I would prefer calling on the name of the Lord than praying to Athanasius.

[awareness]

And I don't see any evidence that Athanasius became God of any sort. So if EO is thanking Athanasius they're thanking someone that said, "do as I say, not as I do ... or rather, don't do."

[awareness]

So where do you draw the line considering these things?
It's a hard line to draw. First, there's the sons of God in Genesis and Job.

And then Jesus says in Matthew "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

[UntoHim]

Mr E, you really can't be that dense, can you?. I mean, you seem to understand the English language fairly well. Why do you blurt out such outrageous garbage? John Piper is one of the most respected and renowned Christians teachers and theologians in the world. He is also one of the most humble and modest men of God of his stature that you will ever find. Compare and contrast this with your guru/apostle/minister of the age/acting god Witness Lee. Most people have never heard of the man, and the few that have, overwhelmingly have a negative impression of him.

You still can't give us a plausible, coherent answer why Hank Hanegraaff completely rejected the ministry and teachings of Witness Lee in favor of a religious sect that is closer to "the Great Whore of Babylon" than even her little daughters - all the protestant churches. Hank spend SIX LONG YEARS in close study and fellowship with the Local Church. He traveled around and was given the royal treatment and the right hand of fellowship by the Blended Brothers et al. And how did he repay them? He ran right into the arms of the Great Whore instead of becoming the crown jewel of the Lord's Recovery. He would have become a movement superstar. They would have carried him around on their shoulders and loudly proclaim that this was proof positive that the Local Church of Witness Lee is "orthodox".

So Mr E, instead spewing forth garbage about John Piper praying to Athanasius why don't you address the issue at hand.
-

[Evangelical]

My English is fine I think, how about your English? Whether it is verbally spoken or in written form it looks like a prayer to me "Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father.". He is thanking him for "a grace the magnitude of which our minds can never fully grasp". I thought that thanks should be directed to Jesus.

I am fairly sure if I wrote "thankyou Witness Lee, and thankyou Father in Jesus name amen" you would say I was praying to Witness Lee.

It seems to be a prayer to Heaven, where Athanasius and the Father are. It should say "thankyou Father for Athanasius", or "we should be thankful to Athanasius". But the address of Athanasius as "thankyou Athanasius" followed by "in the name of Jesus, amen" is a prayer. A person does not normally direct a "thankyou" like that to someone who is dead - he is addressing Athanasius directly. I don't know John Piper, what his background is, whether he is partial to prayers to dead Saints in heaven. I am aware that some protestants do pray to the Saints, Episcopalians/Anglicans can sometimes. Whether a regular habit or a slip or the tongue, maybe he is a secret Orthodox like Hank and we may soon see him join the church as well.

[Drake]

So I think what Evangelical said about us being sons of God bares some further looking into. Are we sons? Sure, as too many scriptures say this.

How about God's glory (a question I believe no one has addressed)? Does He give us that? A king gives his children his glory. Colossians 1:27 says, "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Christ is in us, as too many verses state. For instance: "When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me."

If you go to Romans 8 you see that the Triune God is in us (vs 10-11), Father, Son & Spirit.

Ephesians tells us we are the temple, a dwelling place of God in Spirit. Do these verses say we become God? Not exactly. But elsewhere in Ephesians it talks about the riches of His inheritance in the saints.

Why is He our Father? Because He loves us and wants us as His family.

Again, regarding the glory question, John 17 has Jesus praying that "the glory you have given Me, I have given them." And then all the talk about "You in Me and I in them, that they may be one in Us."

"As He is so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) Another thing Evangelical said had to do with Jesus being the prototype (the 2nd man & Last Adam). As a Man, He was nothing short of all we were supposed to be, right? He said, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." Jesus came to introduce the world to the Father. Why the word "Father?" He wants many sons brought to glory!

So where do you draw the line considering these things?

StG,

The line is the Godhead. We believers never become God in the Godhead in spite of misunderstandings, sometimes purposeful, in this forum.

So, i believe many, maybe most, in this forum agree that we are united to God in our spirit when we are regenerated. He who is joined to the Lord is one S/spirit. That is theosis of our spirit. In our past.

Same for the ultimate consummation, the redemption and transfiguration of our bodies for we know we will be just like Him, for we shall see Him as He is in a glorified body. Theosis of our bodies. In the future. Most agree, probably, with that.

The part where people start to toss their cookies is concerning the salvation of the soul in this life. They do not see or refuse to see that there is a process of transformation going on in the believers where the life in our regenerated spirit is moving into our mind, emotion, and will. Daily, providing we cooperate with Him. Here and now. That is theosis of our very being becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Therein lies the rub for most.

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

Drake

[Evangelical]

StG,

The line is the Godhead. We believers never become God in the Godhead in spite of misunderstandings, sometimes purposeful, in this forum.

So, i believe many, maybe most, in this forum agree that we are united to God in our spirit when we are regenerated. He who is joined to the Lord is one S/spirit. That is theosis of our spirit. In our past.

Same for the ultimate consummation, the redemption and transfiguration of our bodies for we know we will be just like Him, for we shall see Him as He is in a glorified body. Theosis of our bodies. In the future. Most agree, probably, with that.

The part where people start to toss their cookies is concerning the salvation of the soul in this life. They do not see or refuse to see that there is a process of transformation going on in the believers where the life in our regenerated spirit is moving into our mind, emotion, and will. Daily, providing we cooperate with Him. Here and now. That is theosis of our very being becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Therein lies the rub for most.

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

Drake


An interesting article I came across is written by Ben Blackwell
Assistant Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University.

He basically affirms everything I have been saying about Protestants/evangelicals and the biblical origins of theosis in this article:

https://cct.biola.edu/man-god-ruins-theosis-christian-tradition/

In my previous posts I made two points based on Psalm 82:
a) Gods are immortal - in Psalm 82 we see immortality. This was the early church's interpretation of Psalm 82.
b) Sons of God are gods - if we call ourselves "sons of God" we are really calling ourselves gods.

He writes:With this, two primary exegetical themes come out of their readings of Psalm 82: (1) gods are immortals and (2) sons of God are gods.[/I]

He also agrees with what I have been saying about evangelicals not knowing about these matters:

Christian theologians have long discussed “theosis” (literally, “becoming a god”) as a final stage of salvation, when human beings have real union with God. The idea is virtually unknown among Protestants

[Drake]

An interesting article I came across is written by Ben Blackwell
Assistant Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University.

He basically affirms everything I have been saying about Protestants/evangelicals and the biblical origins of theosis in this article:

https://cct.biola.edu/man-god-ruins-theosis-christian-tradition/

In my previous posts I made two points based on Psalm 82:
a) Gods are immortal - in Psalm 82 we see immortality. This was the early church's interpretation of Psalm 82.
b) Sons of God are gods - if we call ourselves "sons of God" we are really calling ourselves gods.

He writes:
With this, two primary exegetical themes come out of their readings of Psalm 82: (1) gods are immortals and (2) sons of God are gods.

He also agrees with what I have been saying about evangelicals not knowing about these matters:

Christian theologians have long discussed “theosis” (literally, “becoming a god”) as a final stage of salvation, when human beings have real union with God. The idea is virtually unknown among Protestants

Right,

Terms also can be a stumbling block. Union with God, theosis, divinization, becoming one with God, or deification, all mean the same thing but the last term causes the most reaction because it seems to suggest becoming an object of worship which we never do because worship is only reserved for the Godhead....at least to the Christian. I prefer the descriptors “becoming one with God in life and nature but not in the Godhead” or “divinization “...... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Drake

[Ohio]

Right,

Terms also can be a stumbling block. Union with God, theosis, divinization, becoming one with God, or deification, all mean the same thing but the last term causes the most reaction because it seems to suggest becoming an object of worship which we never do because worship is only reserved for the Godhead....at least to the Christian. I prefer the descriptors “becoming one with God in life and nature but not in the Godhead” or “divinization “...... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Drake

And that's because the Bible does NOT clearly reveal it!

If divination was so "clearly revealed," then why was WL against it for 60 years?

Why did it take the coverup of scandals caused by his own son Phillip to "clearly reveal" this great "high peak" pseudo-truth?

[awareness]

And that's because the Bible does NOT clearly reveal it!

If divination was so "clearly revealed," then why was WL against it for 60 years?

Why did it take the coverup of scandals caused by his own son Phillip to "clearly reveal" this great "high peak" pseudo-truth?
Down thru the years I've known big talkers ; those that can talk a good game but can't play it worth a darn.

Athanasius, Ben Blackwell, CS Lewis, Carl Mosser, Witness Lee, and a host of LCer's, talk theosis, deification, divinization, becoming God in life and nature but not in Godhead, but there's no evidence that any of them are or were anything but faulty humans.

Witness Lee for example had many many years to become God in life and nature but could still lie and cheat the saints out of money, put his unregenerate son in charge, castigate good brothers and sisters in the Lord, and condemn all other Christians. If that's what it means to be God in life and nature then I've been God pretty much all my sinful life.

And I'll bet that Watchman Nee was God in life and nature while he cheated with his company, cheated in taxes, visited brothels, and raped sisters.

And that's why I like theosis, and prolly why Hank likes it : it makes us something we're not ... and oh, it sounds good ... but is nothing but wishful thinking, and too good to be true.

[A little brother]

Right,

Terms also can be a stumbling block. Union with God, theosis, divinization, becoming one with God, or deification, all mean the same thing but the last term causes the most reaction because it seems to suggest becoming an object of worship which we never do because worship is only reserved for the Godhead....at least to the Christian. I prefer the descriptors “becoming one with God in life and nature but not in the Godhead” or “divinization “...... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Drake

Drake, did you intentionally change WL's "become God" to "becoming one with God"? Why the change?

[Drake]

Drake, did you intentionally change WL's "become God" to "becoming one with God"? Why the change?

good catch.

"Becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" is more accurate and better.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Down thru the years I've known big talkers ; those that can talk a good game but can't play it worth a darn.

Athanasius, Ben Blackwell, CS Lewis, Carl Mosser, Witness Lee, and a host of LCer's, talk theosis, deification, divinization, becoming God in life and nature but not in Godhead, but there's no evidence that any of them are or were anything but faulty humans.

Witness Lee for example had many many years to become God in life and nature but could still lie and cheat the saints out of money, put his unregenerate son in charge, castigate good brothers and sisters in the Lord, and condemn all other Christians. If that's what it means to be God in life and nature then I've been God pretty much all my sinful life.

Me too. Not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Compare this to the Apostle Paul -- who still confessed to be the chief of sinners -- until the end.

And Jesus who called Himself "Son of Man" rather than going about proclaiming Himself to be Son of God, God Himself, baby God, God in life and nature, etc. We know who He was thru His life and work.

[A little brother]

good catch. "Becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" is more accurate and better.
Clever answer. I almost convinced myself you typed your true belief unintentionally. Just my wishful thinking perhaps.

Anyway, I thank God that when I tried to search what is the exact wordings of WL, the following link popped up and now I know what we believed Athanasius wrote ("become God") could just be mistranslation.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/are-we-gods

Where the English translation says, quoting St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God,” the official Latin text reads, Ipse siquidem homo factus est, ut nos dii efficeremur. Literal translation: “For the Son of God became man so that we might be made gods.” The Latin term dii translated “God” in the English translation of the Catechism is nominative plural and is not capitalized. Unfortunately, the English translation of the official Latin text gets it wrong. “God” should be “gods.”

Part of the problem here may well go back to the original Greek of St. Athanasius from which the Catechism quotes. The literal translation of the text from St. Athanasius that the Catechism quotes is, “For he was made man in order that we might be deified.” The Greek verb theopoiethomen is where the problem lies. This is a compound of two Greek words that mean god and to make. So one could see how a translator could translate it as “might be made God.”

[UntoHim]

.... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!Maybe that's because Witness Lee is infamous for teaching things that are not clearly revealed in the bible. But this doesn't stop many of his followers extolling him as the only person who spoke as God's oracle on earth. The simple truth is that to Local Churchers, if Lee taught something it was to be considered "recovered truth" or a "high peak truth", even if it was not clearly revealed in the Bible. Oh, they will use the bible...twist and contort it beyond recognition...until it seems to say what Lee is saying. Lee did this while he was alive, and now his followers do this for him in absentia.

Look, this matter of "theosis" or "divinization" is involving heavy-duty, deep theology. Witness Lee, and those "trained" by him, have no business telling us what is and what is not orthodox, biblically sound teaching in this matter. Lee spent his career telling anybody who would listen that professional theologians are all washed up....he called their seminaries "cemeteries". He called them "blind, mooing cows". (but his followers have instituted a number of faux seminaries...but that's ok because when they do it they call them "trainings")

Interesting that Mr E. would use Ben Blackwell's little "Shortread" as some sort of confirmation or proof text for Witness Lee's unbiblical teaching. But since he mentioned Blackwell, let's see how an actual, bonafied, professionally trained theologian handles such advanced concepts:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God. Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical

To be a son of God, then, means being a god, in some sense. These interpreters knew that God did not have numerous children by nature (this status is reserved for his only-begotten Son). Reading this passage within the biblical narrative, they affirmed that these gods were children in a different way—by adoption and by grace.

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.
(all emphasis mine)

Notice how Blackwell is careful to point out that the biblical concept of divinization (theosis) is "ALWAYS METAPHORICAL". Notice his precise language of "Because they are gods by grace, AS OPPOSED TO NATURE". Compare and contrast this precise and accurate exposition to Witness Lee's sloppy and confusing development of this advanced concept. Again, Lee had no business getting into such theological matters as theosis. He was totally unqualified.
-

[Drake]

Down thru the years I've known big talkers ; those that can talk a good game but can't play it worth a darn.

Athanasius, Ben Blackwell, CS Lewis, Carl Mosser, Witness Lee, and a host of LCer's, talk theosis, deification, divinization, becoming God in life and nature but not in Godhead, but there's no evidence that any of them are or were anything but faulty humans.

For the moment, lets say your premise is accurate.

What does that tell us? That because God uses "faulty humans" the truth is void?

nay, nay.

You're a faulty human... but that doesn't stop you from rendering your faulty advice, offering faulty opinions, and living a faulty life. If being a flawless human is the criteria for being used by God then there is only One who fits that bill. Therefore, with that logic no one should say anything about anything or about anyone.

But things don't work that way in God's economy. God uses faulty humans and it doesn't change that he used faulty humans to author the Bible. God reveals His will to faulty humans but that does not make His will or the things He reveals are not void.

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

StG,

The line is the Godhead. We believers never become God in the Godhead in spite of misunderstandings, sometimes purposeful, in this forum.

The part where people start to toss their cookies is concerning the salvation of the soul in this life. They do not see or refuse to see that there is a process of transformation going on in the believers where the life in our regenerated spirit is moving into our mind, emotion, and will. Daily, providing we cooperate with Him. Here and now. That is theosis of our very being becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Therein lies the rub for most.
DrakeThat is what I'm seeing too! And to paraphrase a brother I meet with, I don't think I want that much responsibility (i.e., being part of the Godhead)!

Another brother just reminded me of the old book, "The God-Men" that got the LC all stirred up back in the late 70s (I think). I guess even back then there were plenty of accusations along those lines.

I think bottom-line it is a mystery much like trying to figure out the Triune God. I believe our future is much higher and brighter that any of us have come close to knowing, and I think it is foolish talk if anyone says they knows for sure exactly what that entails!

So in these matters (as in everything) it is important not to add anything to scripture or take anything away. That's why, these days, many of us have ditched the footnotes and commentaries, and just look to the pure milk of the word. (that doesn't mean we never look at men's writings on subjects, but 1st desire the pure milk)

[awareness]

For the moment, lets say your premise is accurate. What does that tell us? That because God uses "faulty humans" the truth is void?
Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you please re-say it in a different way?

And another Hank aside. Hank is hungry. I got another invite in email from him, offering another book. He's now selling Intelligent Design (he must be one of those deified faulty humans I think you are talking about) :
https://www.equip.org/product/cri-resource-stephen-meyer-evolution-resources/

[Sons to Glory!]

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God. Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical
To be a son of God, then, means being a god, in some sense. These interpreters knew that God did not have numerous children by nature (this status is reserved for his only-begotten Son). Reading this passage within the biblical narrative, they affirmed that these gods were children in a different way—by adoption and by grace.
In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.
(all emphasis mine)

That walks a fine line. When the word "adoption" is used, it conjures up bringing someone into your family who does not actually share your life, which is an extremely shallow view of what Christ did as the One Grain falling into the ground to bring forth many grains.

But then at the end of the above quote, he says, "The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God. That is a very interesting way to put it! It seems to me to be an accurate way of saying this - we did not create this life and in no way are we responsible for giving it . . . only receiving it.

But we are a new creation in Christ - a wholly new critter that has never been in the universe before (as a folksy brother I know likes to say). The old nature in Adam has been done away with and we've been given this new nature, a new man created in His image. "Eye has not seen!"

So this is a good discussion and I think I'm a little clearer. I think we can say that we are destined by God as something new, remarkable, astounding and wonderful --- we even receive His glory! But of the Godhead we do not become.

Is it good enough then to just leave it at that and not try to figure out the proverbial number of angels dancing on a pinhead? (after all - knowledge is failing big time)

[least]

But we are a new creation in Christ - a wholly new critter that has never been in the universe before (as a folksy brother I know likes to say). The old nature in Adam has been done away with and we've been given this new nature, a new man created in His image. "Eye has not seen!"


bingo!

NEW CREATION.

-
knowledge fails, love endures. God is love.

[Drake]

Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you please re-say it in a different way?


I thought it was clear but I'll accommodate because maybe my speaking was faulty or maybe your hearing is faulty.

God's truth is not faulty and every man is.

You seem to be making the faulty argument that because God's servant's are faulty then you dismiss the truth. The truth is not made void by man' faults.

The good land was taken in spite of the fact that Moses could not enter because he was faulty.

The truth revealed to Peter (thou art the Christ) is not void just because Peter was a faulty apostle ("Get behind me Satan").

David was a faulty man but his offspring with the faulty Bathsheba was Solomon who built the Temple.

The biblical list goes on.

Now, bring it down to us. You are a faulty man and yet you would have us entertain your ideas even knowing that you are faulty. You don't eliminate yourself from advising others even though you know your ideas are faulty.

Everyone is faulty.... that has zero to do with whether faulty men, now possessing God's life, are being deified!

Drake

[Drake]

That is what I'm seeing too! And to paraphrase a brother I meet with, I don't think I want that much responsibility (i.e., being part of the Godhead)!

Another brother just reminded me of the old book, "The God-Men" that got the LC all stirred up back in the late 70s (I think). I guess even back then there were plenty of accusations along those lines.

I think bottom-line it is a mystery much like trying to figure out the Triune God. I believe our future is much higher and brighter that any of us have come close to knowing, and I think it is foolish talk if anyone says they knows for sure exactly what that entails!

So in these matters (as in everything) it is important not to add anything to scripture or take anything away. That's why, these days, many of us have ditched the footnotes and commentaries, and just look to the pure milk of the word. (that doesn't mean we never look at men's writings on subjects, but 1st desire the pure milk)

All good until the very last point.

There is a reason why God gives gifts to the Body.

Drake

[UntoHim]

-
...and there is also a reason that God has given gifts of discernment to the Body as well. This is why the apostle John, in his first epistle, implored his followers to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God."(4:1) Later, in Revelation, a similar admonition was given: "but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false."(2:2)

This is why I keep reminding us about the problems and dangers of holding out any one man to be "the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age", or "God's Oracle on earth", or "Acting god"....once this kind of authority and adoration is bestowed upon any man, he (and by extension his teachings) becomes virtually unassailable, which in our context here would be synonymous with virtually infallible, and the Body of Christ (individual members, churches or the Body at large) is denied and deprived of any and all discernment regarding such a man.

So when it comes to such an impactful teaching such as theosis or divination, we should...no...we must "consider the source". Does this person(s) have the qualifications, education and track record of teaching in a fundamentally biblical, orthodox and sound manner?.....
....to quote our friend Drake here....nay, nay.

[Ohio]

For the moment, lets say your premise is accurate.

What does that tell us? That because God uses "faulty humans" the truth is void? nay, nay.

You're a faulty human... but that doesn't stop you from rendering your faulty advice, offering faulty opinions, and living a faulty life. If being a flawless human is the criteria for being used by God then there is only One who fits that bill. Therefore, with that logic no one should say anything about anything or about anyone.

But things don't work that way in God's economy. God uses faulty humans and it doesn't change that he used faulty humans to author the Bible. God reveals His will to faulty humans but that does not make His will or the things He reveals are not void.

Drake
Oh Drake, there you go again!

What is a "faulty" human? And how many times do I have to ask you to define "mistake?"

Do any of us really think that God would uses a "faulty" minister who appoints his son to rule with a rod of iron? Who protects his son when he molests the female staff. Who destroys the reputations of any who protest? And then God decides it's time to unveil the highest truths of the universe thru this "faulty" minister after all the "naysayers" are cast out, slandered, and quarantined?

Is that what you believe? Is that really how "God's Economy" works?

[Evangelical]

Interesting that Mr E. would use Ben Blackwell's little "Shortread" as some sort of confirmation or proof text for Witness Lee's unbiblical teaching. But since he mentioned Blackwell, let's see how an actual, bonafied, professionally trained theologian handles such advanced concepts:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God. Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical

To be a son of God, then, means being a god, in some sense. These interpreters knew that God did not have numerous children by nature (this status is reserved for his only-begotten Son). Reading this passage within the biblical narrative, they affirmed that these gods were children in a different way—by adoption and by grace.

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.
(all emphasis mine)

Notice how Blackwell is careful to point out that the biblical concept of divinization (theosis) is "ALWAYS METAPHORICAL". Notice his precise language of "Because they are gods by grace, AS OPPOSED TO NATURE". Compare and contrast this precise and accurate exposition to Witness Lee's sloppy and confusing development of this advanced concept. Again, Lee had no business getting into such theological matters as theosis. He was totally unqualified.
-

Nice try but its not contradicting anything because he is only making the point that we are sons of God by faith. Jesus was the son of God by birth.

The term born again is always metaphorical as well. The reality is that the Spirit joins our spirit.

We are gods by grace. We are not literally born a son of God like the incarnate Christ. That is all he is saying. We will never have both divine and human essence as Christ has, we are only human partaking of the divine nature.

In spirit however it is not metaphorical..it is reality. The born again experience is not a metaphor in spirit.

[Evangelical]

That walks a fine line. When the word "adoption" is used, it conjures up bringing someone into your family who does not actually share your life, which is an extremely shallow view of what Christ did as the One Grain falling into the ground to bring forth many grains.

But then at the end of the above quote, he says, "The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God. That is a very interesting way to put it! It seems to me to be an accurate way of saying this - we did not create this life and in no way are we responsible for giving it . . . only receiving it.

But we are a new creation in Christ - a wholly new critter that has never been in the universe before (as a folksy brother I know likes to say). The old nature in Adam has been done away with and we've been given this new nature, a new man created in His image. "Eye has not seen!"

So this is a good discussion and I think I'm a little clearer. I think we can say that we are destined by God as something new, remarkable, astounding and wonderful --- we even receive His glory! But of the Godhead we do not become.

Is it good enough then to just leave it at that and not try to figure out the proverbial number of angels dancing on a pinhead? (after all - knowledge is failing big time)

You have read this as I have that is saying we become sons of God or gods by faith and His Spirit not that we are ever going to be incarnated like Christ having both natures in our very being.

Lee never said we become god apart from Christ.

[Evangelical]

All good until the very last point.

There is a reason why God gives gifts to the Body.

Drake

I agree. The pure milk of the word is still milk not meat. Hebrews 5:12. What many people dont know is that Theosis or glorification was only an elementary truth for early Christians akin to how justification is an elementary truth today. In other words peoples doctrine is even more elementary than in Paul's time.

Well in 2000 years it seems Christianity has gone backwards not forwards. This stuff was elementary and foundational doctrine in the early church but apparently still well known in theology and Lees footnotes.

[awareness]

I thought it was clear but I'll accommodate because maybe my speaking was faulty or maybe your hearing is faulty.

God's truth is not faulty and every man is.

You seem to be making the faulty argument that because God's servant's are faulty then you dismiss the truth. The truth is not made void by man' faults.

The good land was taken in spite of the fact that Moses could not enter because he was faulty.

The truth revealed to Peter (thou art the Christ) is not void just because Peter was a faulty apostle ("Get behind me Satan").

David was a faulty man but his offspring with the faulty Bathsheba was Solomon who built the Temple.

The biblical list goes on.

Now, bring it down to us. You are a faulty man and yet you would have us entertain your ideas even knowing that you are faulty. You don't eliminate yourself from advising others even though you know your ideas are faulty.

Everyone is faulty.... that has zero to do with whether faulty men, now possessing God's life, are being deified!

Drake
Now I see. I think. Basically you are pointing out that all men that God uses are faulty.

But the question wasn't, God using men. The question is deification. And if deified men are as faulty as every one else, what's the point of deification?

Maybe I don't understand your definition of deification. Please define it for this dummy. Tell me, for example, the fruit of it.

[UntoHim]

Nice try but its not contradicting anything because he is only making the point that we are sons of God by faith. Jesus was the son of God by birth.

Mr E, have you read today's "Witness Wednesday" quote?
"Since we are born of God..ARE WE NOT GOD?"
"we may say and even we should say that we are God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

Again, compare and contrast with Blackwell (a bonafide theologian)
In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.

If you'll stop pray-reading Witness Lee for a few minutes and just read (prayerfully or not) Blackwell, you will see the blatant contradiction in Lee. One guy is giving us the evangelical, orthodox understanding/teaching, and the other guy is giving us his unorthodox, unbiblical, make-it-up-as-you-go-along "theology".
-

[Drake]

Now I see. I think. Basically you are pointing out that all men that God uses are faulty.

But the question wasn't, God using men. The question is deification. And if deified men are as faulty as every one else, what's the point of deification?

Maybe I don't understand your definition of deification. Please define it for this dummy. Tell me, for example, the fruit of it.


Hi awareness

Post 314 and 316 explain my viiew of the process of deification according to the biblical revelation.

Thx
Drake

[Evangelical]

Mr E, have you read today's "Witness Wednesday" quote?
"Since we are born of God..ARE WE NOT GOD?"
"we may say and even we should say that we are God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

Again, compare and contrast with Blackwell (a bonafide theologian)
In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.

If you'll stop pray-reading Witness Lee for a few minutes and just read (prayerfully or not) Blackwell, you will see the blatant contradiction in Lee. One guy is giving us the evangelical, orthodox understanding/teaching, and the other guy is giving us his unorthodox, unbiblical, make-it-up-as-you-go-along "theology".
-

Had you taken the time to read the whole article by Blackwell, you would find that your accusations are baseless. It does not matter how good your theologians are if you cannot read and interpret them properly.

Blackwell here defines what he means by God by nature:

In other words, believers do not become a member of the Trinity—that is, they do not become God by nature.

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace.


So Blackwell's meaning of "God by nature" is to be a member of the Trinity.

It is well known that Lee said "God in life and nature but not in the Godhead".

So Blackwell and Lee are not contradictory. I prefer Lee's definition because the term Godhead is actually found in the Bible, but the term Trinity is not.

If we take the time to understand what they both mean by the word "nature" we will see they are talking about different things. Blackwell is only making the point that no one apart from Christ is incarnated or will become an incarnated being like Christ and a member of the Trinity.

Lee is talking about the inward nature and in a way which fits with the orthodox interpretation. That is, we partake of the nature of God like a metal sword (humanity) being forged in fire (divinity). The metal sword of itself is not divine (we are not divine in our created nature, as Blackwell is saying), but it does become divine in a sense when the metal undergoes a process of change, when it is heated by fire, glowing red hot. Instead of metal, Lee used the burning bush analogy if I remember correctly.


As already shown, Blackwell is clearly using the term "God by nature" to refer to being a part of the Trinity. Now let's look at what else Blackwell is saying:


"Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves."

Lee is implicated as a heretic if any of these statements hold true. So let's test that:

Does Lee believe we are gods by nature (where nature in this sense means being a part of the Trinity) - No!

Does Lee believe we "create salvation ourselves? - No!

I see nothing here in Blackwell that contradicts Lee.

I understand that Lee as a non-theologian may use words loosely which have a precise definition in academia, and these may seem to contradict if we compare them side by side. But consider the intent behind the words and consider what Lee is not saying. He is not saying we can "create salvation ourselves and become gods by created nature". He is not saying we become part of the Godhead or Trinity.

[awareness]

Hi awareness
Post 314 and 316 explain my viiew of the process of deification according to the biblical revelation.
Thanks bro Drake. I went back to those two posts, and found no clarity. So let me ask. Those you listed from the Bible, Moses, David, Peter, Bathsheba, et al, were they according to scripture deified?

[Drake]

Thanks bro Drake. I went back to those two posts, and found no clarity. So let me ask. Those you listed from the Bible, Moses, David, Peter, Bathsheba, et al, were they according to scripture deified?

The NT opened the path of divinization of humanity. However, I do not dismiss that ultimately all of God’s people will be divinized as the New Jerusalem depicts.

Drake

[awareness]

Oh Drake, there you go again!

What is a "faulty" human? And how many times do I have to ask you to define "mistake?"

Do any of us really think that God would uses a "faulty" minister who appoints his son to rule with a rod of iron? Who protects his son when he molests the female staff. Who destroys the reputations of any who protest? And then God decides it's time to unveil the highest truths of the universe thru this "faulty" minister after all the "naysayers" are cast out, slandered, and quarantined?

Is that what you believe? Is that really how "God's Economy" works?
Good points bro Ohio. If God's economy produces followers that aren't really much different than nonfollowers, then what's the point of theosis?

If their theosis is just teachings, and different rituals -- ways of meetings -- then their theosis is just a claim and a platitude.

I just don't buy it.

I remember sitting in a conference where Lee stated that just by sitting in the conference we were being transformed into the image of Christ. That's all it took.

All it took to be transformed was listening to Lee speak. I guess he considered his speaking was like Jesus breathing on his disciples in John 20 ... I don't know ...

... but it wasn't so.

I was there, and sat thru all the meetings, soaked in his every word, wrote them down, and reviewed them in between.

Was I transformed? If I was I couldn't tell it. I did gain a bunch of teachings. Was that deification? What's deification like anyways?

Exactly what is it like to be God in life and nature? Are all bad thoughts gone? Is sinning gone? Is life perfect ; no bad things happen? Does it endow with the ability to see into the future? Does it mean there's access to privileged truths or revelations?

To put it simply, what's the gain in becoming God in life and nature? Can someone tell me? Then we'll talk about how to get there ... if it's possible, that is ... and more effective than listening to Lee.

[Sons to Glory!]

Post #325 by me you responded to: So in these matters (as in everything) it is important not to add anything to scripture or take anything away. That's why, these days, many of us have ditched the footnotes and commentaries, and just look to the pure milk of the word. (that doesn't mean we never look at men's writings on subjects, but 1st desire the pure milk)All good until the very last point.

There is a reason why God gives gifts to the Body.

DrakePlease clarify what you are referring to.

[Drake]

Please clarify what you are referring to.

Sure StG,

Me with my Bible soaking up the pure milk of the word is not the complete NT revelation to build up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4. The building up of the Body of Christ has an arrangement (gifts given) accomplished by Christ in His resurrection, ascension, and enthronement. The gifts in v11 become enablers according to their function to build the Body. They do not build the Body directly but enable others to build the Body.... (e.g. you, me). If I were to ditch ALL footnotes and commentaries then I also ditch the NT arrangement to build the Body of Christ and cut myself off from the very supply that will build the Body of Christ through the gifts given by Christ.

It sounds spiritual to say we are only going to take in the pure milk of the Word without any teaching of man to influence our thinking but God uses man exactly in that capacity through the gifts He gave to the Body for its building up. There is a time for the sweetness of feeding on the milk of the Word with the Lord one on one but that does not replace the rich supply from the banquet going on in the Body. After all, it’s there for a reason.

Thx
Drake

[Ohio]

If I were to ditch ALL footnotes and commentaries then I also ditch the NT arrangement to build the Body of Christ and cut myself off from the very supply that will build the Body of Christ through the gifts given by Christ.

Couple points here.

Firstly, Drake, is it not hypocritical to ascribe to a policy which condemns the writings of all gifts from the Head to His body, except for Nee, Lee, and the Blended We? Have not LSM LC's ditched "ALL footnotes and commentaries" except those sanctioned in the Rec. Version and the HWfMR?

Secondly, does not the church which is His body consider the writings of scripture alone as "The Holy Word of God," so that it alone could be considered the source of the "pure milk of the word"?

To receive the ministry of the "post-apostolic-age" apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers (the Ephesians 4.11 "gifts") as the "pure milk of the word" is frighteningly dangerous. That alone is the defining characteristic of 2 millennia of cults and aberrant sects.

[Sons to Glory!]

Sure StG,

Me with my Bible soaking up the pure milk of the word is not the complete NT revelation to build up the Body of Christ according to Ephesians 4. The building up of the Body of Christ has an arrangement (gifts given) accomplished by Christ in His resurrection, ascension, and enthronement. The gifts in v11 become enablers according to their function to build the Body. They do not build the Body directly but enable others to build the Body.... (e.g. you, me). If I were to ditch ALL footnotes and commentaries then I also ditch the NT arrangement to build the Body of Christ and cut myself off from the very supply that will build the Body of Christ through the gifts given by Christ.

It sounds spiritual to say we are only going to take in the pure milk of the Word without any teaching of man to influence our thinking but God uses man exactly in that capacity through the gifts He gave to the Body for its building up. There is a time for the sweetness of feeding on the milk of the Word with the Lord one on one but that does not replace the rich supply from the banquet going on in the Body. After all, it’s there for a reason.

Thx
DrakeThanks for the clarification. My point was not that we don't look at any "footnotes or commentaries" at all, but more about looking to the word first. The thing about looking at some other persons word first is that it can then easily influence how we frame and see something. (After consulting the scripture and Him in a prayerful way 1st, then look at various commentaries, etc.)

And Evangelical, there is nothing wrong with the "pure milk of the word!" I understand what you are saying about going on from milk to meat and all. But too often what is meant by meat is perhaps just some dead knowledge which kills and is devoid of love. Personally, whenever the Lord has shown me something in the word, I get excited and also a little puffed-up that I have seen some lofty thing. Then I try to convey it to others usually in a prideful way (sorry, that's my immaturity in Christ). This is not love; it is knowledge, which fails (inverse - love doesn't fail). So because of this, I'm actually learning that I'd rather experience love than knowledge. If it comes down to the priority between love, pure milk and meaty knowledge - knowledge is (dead) last! We must ask ourselves: "Is what I'm doing and conveying to others really building them up in love?" Meaty dead knowledge is by far well down the building-up list (somewhere between wood & stubble), and is really just a form of entertainment in my estimation.

And Ohio I agree with what you asked/stated: Have not LSM LC's ditched "ALL footnotes and commentaries" except those sanctioned in the Rec. Version and the HWfMR?

[Drake]

Thanks for the clarification. My point was not that we don't look at any "footnotes or commentaries" at all, but more about looking to the word first. The thing about looking at some other persons word first is that it can then easily influence how we frame and see something. (After consulting the scripture and Him in a prayerful way 1st, then look at various commentaries, etc.)

And Evangelical, there is nothing wrong with the "pure milk of the word!" I understand what you are saying about going on from milk to meat and all. But too often what is meant by meat is perhaps just some dead knowledge which kills and is devoid of love. Personally, whenever the Lord has shown me something in the word, I get excited and also a little puffed-up that I have seen some lofty thing. Then I try to convey it to others usually in a prideful way (sorry, that's my immaturity in Christ). This is not love; it is knowledge, which fails (inverse - love doesn't fail). So because of this, I'm actually learning that I'd rather experience love than knowledge. If it comes down to the priority between love, pure milk and meaty knowledge - knowledge is (dead) last! We must ask ourselves: "Is what I'm doing and conveying to others really building them up in love?" Meaty dead knowledge is by far well down the building-up list (somewhere between wood & stubble), and is really just a form of entertainment in my estimation.

And Ohio I agree with what you asked/stated:

Reasonable, except your last point.... ;)

God works through the Body. We each are but a single member of the Body. Are you all the hearing? Is another member an ear in the Body perhaps more so than you might be.... your hearing is limited.... so is mine.

However, I did not say not look at the Word.... first is already past unless you mean first thing every morning. I said there is a time for personal time in the Word...... but what you said was ditching... ("ditching" implies tossing it like trash that you never expect to use again)

get rid of; give up.
"it crossed her mind to ditch her shoes and run"
synonyms:throw out, throw away, discard, get rid of, dispose of, do away with, deep-six, shed; abandon, drop, shelve, scrap, jettison, throw on the scrapheap;
informaldump, junk, chuck, pull the plug on, trash
"she ditched her old curtains"

So, my response was to that definition. Had you said " I like to read the Word, muse on it, pray over it, and let the Lord speak to me, before I read what others have to say on that verse.... then I would have said "Amen".

This concept of me and the pure word was expressed before you were born with this cowboy tune "Me and Jesus got our own thing going.. and we don't need nobody to tell us what's its all about". :rolleyes:

That whole notion is anti-Body of Christ. There are different versions of it in various circles. The Body of Christ and its building up needs every member and every member to function according to their measure. Every member has a personal time with the Lord in the Word one-on-one and every member honors and takes the supply from the other members especially the joints of the rich supply, the gifts given by Christ to the Body.

Drake

[Ohio]

That whole notion is anti-Body of Christ. There are different versions of it in various circles. The Body of Christ and its building up needs every member and every member to function according to their measure. Every member has a personal time with the Lord in the Word one-on-one and every member honors and takes the supply from the other members especially the joints of the rich supply, the gifts given by Christ to the Body.

Drake
But, Drake, do you really need "every member" when you condemn 99% of Christians outside TLR and quarantine 25% of those inside TLR?

[Sons to Glory!]

Reasonable, except your last point.... ;)..I didn't think I used the word "ditched" but I went back and looked at that post and sure enough I used the word after all. "Ditched" maybe was too strong, as I did also say that we go back and look at commentaries after first milking the word.

Certainly agree regarding needing all the body. And as Ohio alluded to, this comes from all directions in the body! When I was in the LC (and for some time afterwards) I didn't believe that to be true. But since then I have gained Christ and light from members in many denominations and groups! (just as the Lord talks about there being "overcomers" in the various Revelation churches . . .) Sure, each group has it's "warts" (including the LC) and one has to look past all that to find the real food and nuggets. (and admittedly it is VERY hard to find in some groups)

[UntoHim]

Blackwell here defines what he means by God by nature:
In other words, believers do not become a member of the Trinity—that is, they do not become God by nature.
So Blackwell's meaning of "God by nature" is to be a member of the Trinity.
No, Mr. E. you're pretty clueless on what Blackwell meant. Well, you're either clueless, or trying to be clever by only quoting the part that seems to agree with Witness Lee's unorthodox, unbiblical teaching regarding this matter. (for your sake I'm going to assume it's the former not the later)

Here's the part you left out (intentionally or not):
So although theosis depicts the reality of a stage in salvation,it is a metaphor in that believers are only adopted as gods by grace. Furthermore, it is through this adoption that believers are literally transformed into the image of Christ.

Opps! There's that word "metaphor" used again. (Witness Lee was famous for using metaphors when he should have gone with the literal, and using the literal with he should have employed the metaphor.) Also, note how Blackwell ALWAYS uses a small "g" when taking about believers being "god". Conversely, it should be noticed how Witness Lee always used a capital "G" when talking about believers being "God". This is the difference between an educated, trained and biblically precise theologian, and a man like Witness Lee who thought that God has somehow granted him special privileges to just makeup stuff out of the blue. Even his super-mentor, Watchman Nee, never taught anything like Lee did in this matter.

I understand that Lee as a non-theologian may use words loosely which have a precise definition in academia, and these may seem to contradict if we compare them side by side.
So how did a "non-theologian" become the SOLE THEOLOGIAN of an entire Christian movement? How is it that a man "may use words loosely" but still be considered THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH SPEAKING AS GOD'S ORACLE ON EARTH since 1945?
-

[Drake]

... after first milking the word.)

I don’t think I’ve heard it ever expressed exactly that way.....

;)

[Trapped]

First and foremost, the word. The word is pure milk. It is also bread. It is also solid food.

Witness Lee's footnotes and commentaries can be helpful and enlightening, but they should not be considered the substantial "meat" over the insubstantial "milk" of the word. This is an error.

However, at this point I personally cannot discount WL's footnotes and comments entirely. He did get some things correct, and there is some light there. In one meeting we had a new one ask about WL and the use of his materials in the LCs. Another new one who had more experience in life answered according to his own experience which was that he treated WN/WL's books as meat and bones (metaphorically, and in no relation to the "meat" I used earlier in this post). Whatever he received helpful he treated as meat and took in, and the rest that didn't help him or he didn't quite agree with, he simply discarded as bones, not something he should swallow, and moved on.

Similarly, he treated many other Bible commentaries in the same way, and was thus able to receive much more encouragement and light than if he had restricted himself to just the exposition of one man.

Witness Lee especially, his style of expounding does very little for me personally. It is very hard for me to relate to it, but that does not mean that I am lacking somehow or unwilling or in darkness or whatever. I have always mostly hit my head against it my whole life, no matter how much I read or tried.

For example, I've been struggling hard with forgiving some saints recently who really gutted me and then lied to me, and then continued to do so knowing what they were doing and not caring ONE BIT how they were affecting me. From WL I would get, "The root of our unwillingness to forgive others lies in our dispositional anger. Every man has a disposition that makes it easy for him to be offended, especially by his wife. The reason there are so many separations and divorces is that the women complain and that the men find it difficult to forgive. I advise the sisters not to complain and the brothers not to be offended." "Seventy times seven means that we must forgive others an unlimited number of times."

Well, that's nice, Witness. Thanks for your inspired advice not to be offended. I'm still struggling.

Then I was listening to Christian radio today......non-WL inspired songs! Tenth Avenue North's song "Losing" came on and nailed it. Spoke right to me. Said exactly what I was feeling, exactly how worn out my heart was by their months upon months of disregard, exactly the despair that I was the one losing and I was wrestling so hard with being in that position when I never thought these saints would be the ones to put me there. It didn't blame my disposition, it didn't tell me "I must" do something. It met me right where I was, on the floor really grasping to forgive these ones.

"I can't believe what she said
I can't believe what he did
Oh, don't they know it's wrong
Don't they know it's wrong

Maybe there's something I missed
How could they treat me like this?
It's wearing out my heart
The way they disregard

This is love or this is hate
We all have the choice to make

Oh, Father won't you forgive them
They don't know what they've been doing
Oh, Father give me grace to forgive them
'Cause I feel like the one losing

Well it's only the dead that can live
But still I wrestle with this
To lose the pain that's mine
Seventy times seven times
'Cause Lord it doesn't feel right
For me to turn a blind eye
Though I guess it's not that much
When I think of what You've done"

[Evangelical]

Here's the part you left out (intentionally or not):
So although theosis depicts the reality of a stage in salvation, it is a metaphor in that believers are only adopted as gods by grace. Furthermore, it is through this adoption that believers are literally transformed into the image of Christ.


The way you are underlining it is wrong (there is no comma between "only adopted as gods" and "by grace"), so you get the wrong understanding. Note that he does talk about theosis as a reality and a literal transformation.

It helps to read the whole paragraph to get the proper sense of what he is saying:

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. - Blackwell is contrasting being God by nature (being part of the Trinity, with the Father and the Spirit), with becoming God/gods by grace.


Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. - we cannot become God by our own effort.

Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. - saying the same thing.

The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God. - in other words, we are different to Christ who is a member of the Trinity and incarnated.


In other words, believers do not become a member of the Trinity—that is, they do not become God by nature. - here Blackwell states clearly what he means by "become God by nature". It is about being a member of the Trinity.


So although theosis depicts the reality of a stage in salvation, it is a metaphor in that believers are only adopted as gods by grace.

The metaphor here refers to "adopted... by grace". There is no comma there, so the metaphor is not, as you claim, the part which says "only adopted as gods".

That it is the "adopted.. by grace" which is the metaphor is confirmed by the next sentence where he talks about a literal transformation through the adoption:

Furthermore, it is through this adoption that believers are literally transformed into the image of Christ.

In summary, where Blackwell says that we become gods by grace and not by nature (not by being part of the Trinity of our own efforts or in ourselves), is saying the same thing as Lee does when he says "becoming God but not part of the God-head".

[Evangelical]

Also, note how Blackwell ALWAYS uses a small "g" when taking about believers being "god". Conversely, it should be noticed how Witness Lee always used a capital "G" when talking about believers being "God". This is the difference between an educated, trained and biblically precise theologian, and a man like Witness Lee who thought that God has somehow granted him special privileges to just makeup stuff out of the blue. Even his super-mentor, Watchman Nee, never taught anything like Lee did in this matter.
-

If you think the use of capitalization is the difference between a theologian and a non-theologian then you have a lot to learn.

A listing of many quotes by church fathers and others shows that some use the capital G and others use small g. I think CS Lewis uses capital G as well. Here is the wiki link, we may count how many use G and how many use g. Either are used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

I find it is typical to say "become God" and to say "becoming gods" (presumably because there is only one God). "gods" should not be capitalized because there is only one God. So there is no fixed rule about the capitalization. God or god does not matter, as long as we understand "become God" does not mean become part of the Trinity/Godhead. Witness Lee clarifies the meaning "but not in the Godhead", so it is just as orthodox as Athanasius or CS Lewis.

It is factually wrong to say Lee never uses small g:

we, who are the children of God, are men becoming gods. The children of God are gods. ~ The Issue of Christ Being Glorified by the Father with the Divine Glory

To help avoid confusion, Lee introduced the term God-man. This avoids confusion over use of the term and we don't have to worry about capitalization of g or G. In this respect, Lee a non-theologian, thought of something that Blackwell didn't, which shows innovation and that could have earned him an academic publication.

[Evangelical]

Let's take a more complete look at Blackwell's introductory paragraph:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God. Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical—believers don’t literally become God (as a member of the Trinity). With this in mind, why even use the language becoming gods if it sounds so heretical? If believers don’t become God, what do they become?

I will break it down line by line and then explain other sentences about the metaphor:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God.

- in other words, there is a difference between creatures becoming God and God who is God.

Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical—believers don’t literally become God (as a member of the Trinity).

- what is metaphorical is that Christians become God as a member of the Trinity. Becoming God (by grace) however is not metaphorical. If it were, then everything Blackwell wrote about becoming gods by grace would not be true. And what Athanasius wrote "become God" would not be true either. Blackwell is not denying that theosis is true, he is setting boundaries between orthodoxy and heresy.


With this in mind, why even use the language becoming gods if it sounds so heretical?


- UntoHim before made some silly point about capitalization before. Here Blackwell is saying "becoming gods" sounds heretical. So if "becoming gods" and "becoming God" both sound heretical, the "little g and big G rule" doesn't really matter does it? The early church fathers and CS Lewis don't care about this silly rule either.


If believers don’t become God, what do they become?

- Here Blackwell seems to be using the term God to refer to the Trinity. "believes don't become God" must mean we don't become part of the Trinity, as Blackwell already made that point earlier.


Thus, we look so much like God that we might (metaphorically) be called gods.

- Lee also says this in "The Organic Union in God's Relationship with Man". He mentions how we look like God just as a photograph of a person looks like that person.

I personally don't like Blackwell's use of the term "be called gods" (little g) because it implies we are gods in ourselves (like ten thousand god's of Egypt). It is better to say "be called God" because then it is clear we are saying we look like the one true God.


This metaphor illustrates theosis: just as the iron does not cease to be iron, humans do not cease to be humans. - Lee does not believe humans cease to be humans, either. Even "more fully human" is a phrase I have heard before in the recovery.


Similarily, in the process of deification believers are united to God and become like him, experiencing his life and holiness. - Lee already says something like this but calls it the "organic union".

I find nothing in Blackwell's article that contradicts Lee. Although they both use terms slightly differently they both agree that to become God is not to become part of the Trinity or an object of worship. Given that is the case, I don't know why people have an issue with what Lee teaches and not the early church fathers, or CS Lewis and many others.

[Kevin]

Why so enamored with theosis? Seriously, why could this be considered as the highest gospel? :lurking:
:music:God’s eternal economy
Is to make man the same as He is
In life and nature,
But not in the Godhead
And to make Himself one with man
And man one with Him
Thus to be enlarged and expanded in His expression
That all His divine, that all His divine
Attributes may be expressed in human virtues.:music:

[Drake]

Why so enamored with theosis? Seriously, why could this be considered as the highest gospel? :lurking:
:music:God’s eternal economy
Is to make man the same as He is
In life and nature,
But not in the Godhead
And to make Himself one with man
And man one with Him
Thus to be enlarged and expanded in His expression
That all His divine, that all His divine
Attributes may be expressed in human virtues.:music:

What could be higher?

When we believe we get fire insurance, then when we die we all go to heaven, meet and get passed St. Peter at the pearly gates, get a pair of wings, become angels, get a new mansion next door to Jesus, and walk on streets of gold?

“I had a dream, I must confess, I hated to awake
He dreamt he was an angel at the great pearly gates
Saint Peter said "Well hello there, where have you been?
We've got your mansion ready so come right in."
And then he ranged for an angel to act as a guide
He spread his wings a time or two and learned how to fly

Well it's a great, great morning
Your first day in Heaven
When you're strolling down the golden avenue
There are mansions left and right
And you're thrilled at every sight
And the saints are always smiling saying "How do you do?"
Oh it's a great, great morning
You're first day in Heaven
When you realize your worrying day are through
You'll be glad you were not idle
Took time to read your bible
It's a great morning
A great morning
What a happy day”

Gaither Vocal Band “ First Day in Heaven”


Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

First and foremost, the word. The word is pure milk. It is also bread. It is also solid food.

Witness Lee's footnotes and commentaries can be helpful and enlightening, but they should not be considered the substantial "meat" over the insubstantial "milk" of the word. This is an error.

However, at this point I personally cannot discount WL's footnotes and comments entirely. He did get some things correct, and there is some light there. In one meeting we had a new one ask about WL and the use of his materials in the LCs. Another new one who had more experience in life answered according to his own experience which was that he treated WN/WL's books as meat and bones (metaphorically, and in no relation to the "meat" I used earlier in this post). Whatever he received helpful he treated as meat and took in, and the rest that didn't help him or he didn't quite agree with, he simply discarded as bones, not something he should swallow, and moved on.

Similarly, he treated many other Bible commentaries in the same way, and was thus able to receive much more encouragement and light than if he had restricted himself to just the exposition of one man.This nails it I think. I like not treating any man's comments as the "meat & bones" but rather the Bible itself! (and, as stated, WL certainly did have some light, to which we are thankful)

And now (after partaking of the pure milk of the word): . . . thanks be to God . . . you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed Romans 6:17It is God who places members in the body as HE sees fit - and we need ALL members (whatever groups they have been committed to).

[UntoHim]

I find nothing in Blackwell's article that contradicts Lee. Although they both use terms slightly differently they both agree that to become God is not to become part of the Trinity or an object of worship. Given that is the case, I don't know why people have an issue with what Lee teaches and not the early church fathers, or CS Lewis and many others.

Mr E., the more you try to convince us that Lee's teachings are saying the same thing as Blackwell's, the deeper hole you dig for yourself. (and you've got a long ways to go, my friend, to get to the bottom of the bottomless pit of Lee's unbiblical teachings) Blackwell is NOT using "but not in the Godhead" as a proviso to mitigate or soften an unbiblical or heretical statement, such as "We are becoming God in life and nature". Blackwell doesn't have to use any provisos, caveats or stipulations because he doesn't make any unbiblical or heretical statements to begin with.

In this respect, Lee a "non-theologian", thought of something that Blackwell didn't, which shows innovation and that could have earned him an academic publication.

So if Lee was a non-theologian (wow, big revelation there, bro!:rolleyes:) then why are you comparing and contrasting his teachings with a genuine, bonafide theologian like Blackwell? It begs the question...why do you believe that Witness Lee is The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age? Why do you believe that Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle?
-

[Ohio]

Why so enamored with theosis? Seriously, why could this be considered as the highest gospel?
We should seriously consider Lee's "highest gospel" in light of Paul's admonitions in the scripture.

For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. -- II Cor 11.4

But even if we or an angel out of heaven should preach a gospel to you contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! -- Gal 1.8

Here we must ask how this "highest gospel" is used in the LC's and what is the fruit of this alternate gospel. Having lived in the LC's for decades, I am well aware that her members pride themselves in their different gospel, to them a better gospel. In their hearts and in their speaking, they condemn other Christians for their "low gospel." I have seen LC members, especially the younger set, who may not even be saved, yet have been convinced that they are part of God's elite and exclusive church club.

In character and action they bear little difference from the Judaizers and Pharisees of old.

[UntoHim]

Gaither Vocal Band “ First Day in Heaven”

Not sure what this has to do with the "Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox"...but thanks for the reference anyway.

Thankfully, neither Bill Gaither nor his "followers" (nor anyone else that I know of) consider him to be the One Music Minister with the One Music Ministry for the Age. No one is forcing anyone to listen to ONLY HIS MUSIC, and to totally and fully imbibe the lyrics of his songs. Neither have I have heard brother Gaither use any pathetic epithets like "poor, poor Christian musicians". Neither have I heard Bill Gaither declare "when we come to any city we are the only legitimate Gospel singers in that city!...all others are little daughters of the Great Musician Whore!"
-

[awareness]

Hey, we're on our way to defining what it means to become god. Now we know it doesn't mean becoming the trinity, or being worshiped. And oh ... not in the godhead. Our definition is short. I still don't know what it means to become god.

Maybe we're confusing theosis with henosis.

[Drake]

Hey, we're on our way to defining what it means to become god. Now we know it doesn't mean becoming the trinity, or being worshiped. And oh ... not in the godhead. Our definition is short. I still don't know what it means to become god.

Maybe we're confusing theosis with henosis.


Well, that is progress.

It is having the life of God in our spirit, soul, and body.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Mr E., the more you try to convince us that Lee's teachings are saying the same thing as Blackwell's, the deeper hole you dig for yourself. (and you've got a long ways to go, my friend, to get to the bottom of the bottomless pit of Lee's unbiblical teachings) Blackwell is NOT using "but not in the Godhead" as a proviso to mitigate or soften an unbiblical or heretical statement, such as "We are becoming God in life and nature". Blackwell doesn't have to use any provisos, caveats or stipulations because he doesn't make any unbiblical or heretical statements to begin with.


Lee believed that we "become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead". That is possibly the most correct way to say it when we compare with the many early church references that I gave. None of them are shy to use capital G like Blackwell is, and none saw it as "only a metaphor" either. They did not qualify their statements either with "but not in the God-head". So the teachings of early church fathers or CS Lewis are more likely to be misinterpreted than Lee's ever will be.

Blackwell stated that we do not become God by nature (meaning part of the Trinity), but he did refer to becoming god (little g). This could be misinterpreted - little g can imply a third substance, i.e. God, man, and "gods", like the many gods of Egypt or India. There is no such thing as little g 'god', there is God, there is man, that's all, there is no half man half God demi-god like the Greek gods.

The term God-man that Lee introduced makes it much clearer, that it is the joining of God and man.

Both of these statements by Lee and Blackwell are equivalent. They both use the word nature but they do not use the word in the same way. When Lee says "God in nature" he is referring to partaking of God's nature. When Blackwell says "God by nature" he is referring to being a member of the Trinity. This is obvious to anyone who can speak and read English.





So if Lee was a non-theologian (wow, big revelation there, bro!:rolleyes:) then why are you comparing and contrasting his teachings with a genuine, bonafide theologian like Blackwell? It begs the question...why do you believe that Witness Lee is The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age? Why do you believe that Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle?
-

When we get to the heart of the matter, theologians confirm what Lee taught. They also confirm that the doctrine of theosis is orthodox and historical.

Blackwell shows that theosis is an orthodox, not heretical doctrine. Most protestants don't know about it, and their gospel of justification is different to what the early church taught and believed - it is missing the goal/purpose of salvation.

[Evangelical]

We should seriously consider Lee's "highest gospel" in light of Paul's admonitions in the scripture.

For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. -- II Cor 11.4

But even if we or an angel out of heaven should preach a gospel to you contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! -- Gal 1.8

Here we must ask how this "highest gospel" is used in the LC's and what is the fruit of this alternate gospel. Having lived in the LC's for decades, I am well aware that her members pride themselves in their different gospel, to them a better gospel. In their hearts and in their speaking, they condemn other Christians for their "low gospel." I have seen LC members, especially the younger set, who may not even be saved, yet have been convinced that they are part of God's elite and exclusive church club.

In character and action they bear little difference from the Judaizers and Pharisees of old.

The article by Blackwell shows that the gospel in the early church was the high gospel (of theosis) Lee taught and is "is virtually unknown among Protestants":

The idea is virtually unknown among Protestants; but the goal of salvation described in terms of “theosis” or “deification” is at the heart of Eastern Orthodox theology, as inherited by Byzantine and Greek patristic theologians. We might say that theosis is to the Orthodox as justification is to the Protestant.

"virtually unknown among Protestants" could be interpreted to mean "they don't know the full or high gospel", even though it is in the Bible.

The Bible confirms that theosis/glorification is the goal of salvation:

Romans 8:30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Since glorification appears last in the list, it is the goal of salvation. This is in contrast to many evangelicals who say being saved from sins/hell, or getting to heaven is the goal of salvation. The Protestant gospel stops at justification (or holiness/sanctification, sometimes) however, so falls short of the full, complete, or "high gospel". If something falls short of something it is correct to call that thing "low" or "lower".

[awareness]

Well, that is progress.

It is having the life of God in our spirit, soul, and body.

Drake
Truth is the experience of union with God is a most joyful experience. And the truth is for me is that I can have more of a profound experience of union with God, in the woods, on my back, watching the stars move by in the tree tops, or just sitting out back staring into a star filled sky at night, than I ever had in local church meetings, conferences, or any church meeting for that matter.

And it is said that the end result of henosis is deification. So for me, the possibly of deification, is greater in the woods, than in Witness Lee's meetings, and/or conferences ... including the FTT ... or any church meeting, except maybe in the silent meetings of the Quakers.

Shouting for God and Jesus indicates a desperate distance from union with God.

[Evangelical]

This is a quick note about the biblical meaning of "milk" and "meat", because the use of the terms by some here is not correct.

Milk means the basic elementary teachings of Christianity, first learnt by new believers. Gospel of justification, for example.

Meat means the deeper spiritual truths (more solid, complete and deeper spiritual doctrines of the Gospel). Gospel of glorification or theosis, for example, as it is the more complete gospel.

These definitions are straight from the Greek, explained here:

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-is-the-milk-and-meat-of-the-bible.html

If you are a new believer, then milk is good for you. If you are a long time believer, then you probably should not talk about "going back to milk" as it implies immaturity. The Bible encourages us to leave the elementary things and go onwards.

[awareness]

So if Lee was a non-theologian (wow, big revelation there, bro!) then why are you comparing and contrasting his teachings with a genuine, bonafide theologian like Blackwell? It begs the question...why do you believe that Witness Lee is The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age? Why do you believe that Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle?
-
When we get to the heart of the matter, theologians confirm what Lee taught. They also confirm that the doctrine of theosis is orthodox and historical.
If we really get down to it, Dr. Blackwell would be a scholar for Lee to learn from, and reference. But Lee, a self professed history buff, wouldn't cite sources from poor, poor, poor, Christianity, specially if they were more knowledgeable than him.

And yes, the idea of theosis has been around a long time. In fact, much longer than Christianity. Apotheosis goes back to at least ancient Greek philosophy. In fact, we get these terms, theosis and apotheosis, from the Greeks ; as well as the name for God, theos, with no capitalizing, whether little god, as in 'know ye not that ye are gods,' or speaking of the Father God.

Witness Lee did not cook up the idea of God in life and nature, 'cept to word it that specific way.

So this idea of theosis has been around a long long time. But in all of history there's been only one to achieve it, according to the NT. Not even Paul achieved it.

But then we haven't clearly defined what it means to become G(g)od. In life and nature says nothing. All we've clarified so far is that it's not in the trinity, worship worthy, or in the Godhead. I think that's called negative theology.

I still want to know what a true godman, if such exists, is. How is he or she different from non-godmen?

Do they love their neighbors more? If so, given that Lee didn't display much love for his neighbors, specially Christian neighbors, and even good brothers in his own group, Lee never came close to being a godman. He just talked the talk.

[Drake]

I still want to know what a true godman, if such exists, is. How is he or she different from non-godmen? .

Awareness,

No human being dead or alive will satisfy the question for you.

Therefore, I think the NT writers and those they wrote about, like Stephen in Acts, are the best examples of “true Godmen”. Just stick with those as your examples to follow. Look no further.

Drake

[UntoHim]

I still want to know what a true godman, if such exists, is. How is he or she different from non-godmen?
No human being dead or alive will satisfy the question for you.

Probably a real strong indication that something is not biblical, at least not in the way it is being taught.
-

[awareness]

Awareness,

No human being dead or alive will satisfy the question for you.

Therefore, I think the NT writers and those they wrote about, like Stephen in Acts, are the best examples of “true Godmen”. Just stick with those as your examples to follow. Look no further.

Drake
Let's not sell those short in the NT that performed miracles. If I could heal people, just by my shadow passing over them, I think most, even atheists, would have to consider that I was a form of a god. And if I could forgive sins. Also if I could see into the future.

Are such behaviors characteristic of godmen? Sign me up. But again, in those regards, Lee didn't cut the mustard, and the big talker wasn't a godman. If he didn't make it, do you and I ever have a chance?

And if we can't reach the NT standard, then what's the point of becoming a godman?

I remember in the LC, I felt that I fell so short, because I wasn't like those in the NT. I remember literally praying my guts out because I wasn't like them, to the point of constantly having a knot in my stomach. I really really wanted to be a godman like them.

I finally concluded that God wanted those godmen back then, but ain't doing that today. Even The Recovery didn't recover that ... and won't.

[A little brother]

Let's not sell those short in the NT that performed miracles. If I could heal people, just by my shadow passing over them, I think most, even atheists, would have to consider that I was a form of a god.
Good point. In Acts 14, when the people in Lystra thought Barnabas and Paul were gods and wanted to worship them, why didn't they take the opportunity to preach the high peak truth? - "You people are wrong. You should not worship me. But you are half right. We are no Zeus or Hermes, but we are men becoming God in live and in nature but not in the Godhead."

Instead, their reply was "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men of like feeling as you, and announce the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and the sea and all things in them;..." (Acts 14:15)

[Sons to Glory!]

This is a quick note about the biblical meaning of "milk" and "meat", because the use of the terms by some here is not correct.

Milk means the basic elementary teachings of Christianity, first learnt by new believers. Gospel of justification, for example.

Meat means the deeper spiritual truths (more solid, complete and deeper spiritual doctrines of the Gospel). Gospel of glorification or theosis, for example, as it is the more complete gospel.

These definitions are straight from the Greek, explained here:

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-is-the-milk-and-meat-of-the-bible.html

If you are a new believer, then milk is good for you. If you are a long time believer, then you probably should not talk about "going back to milk" as it implies immaturity. The Bible encourages us to leave the elementary things and go onwards.Okay and thanks. Yes, that would probably be the specific and correct usage of the term "milk" as it relates to real scriptural knowledge. So maybe it's just better to drop the "milk" and say "the pure word" to denote its difference from men's thoughts. (i.e., going to the pure word first rather than men's commentaries)

And, as stated earlier, we also must be careful when using the term "meat" as it pertains to the divine revelation. Because too often that can be used almost as a "I am of Christ" sort of thing, such as "We have the real meat and you don't!" In that case, all one has is dead, puffed-up knowledge - I speak from good experience, having gone after saints many times with this non-building-up-in-love, rotting knowledge "meat!" :eek:

[Ohio]

Good point. In Acts 14, when the people in Lystra thought Barnabas and Paul were gods and wanted to worship them, why didn't they take the opportunity to preach the high peak truth? - "You people are wrong. You should not worship me. But you are half right. We are no Zeus or Hermes, but we are men becoming God in live and in nature but not in the Godhead."

Instead, their reply was "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men of like feeling as you, and announce the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and the sea and all things in them;..." (Acts 14:15)
Brother John So, the excommunicated LC co-worker in Germany, who was also related to W. Lee by marriage, wrote a paper titled "I MYSELF ALSO AM A MAN" in 1994.

[Kevin]

What could be higher?

When we believe we get fire insurance, then when we die we all go to heaven, meet and get passed St. Peter at the pearly gates, get a pair of wings, become angels, get a new mansion next door to Jesus, and walk on streets of gold?

“I had a dream, I must confess, I hated to awake
He dreamt he was an angel at the great pearly gates
Saint Peter said "Well hello there, where have you been?
We've got your mansion ready so come right in."
And then he ranged for an angel to act as a guide
He spread his wings a time or two and learned how to fly

Well it's a great, great morning
Your first day in Heaven
When you're strolling down the golden avenue
There are mansions left and right
And you're thrilled at every sight
And the saints are always smiling saying "How do you do?"
Oh it's a great, great morning
You're first day in Heaven
When you realize your worrying day are through
You'll be glad you were not idle
Took time to read your bible
It's a great morning
A great morning
What a happy day”

Gaither Vocal Band “ First Day in Heaven”


Drake

Funny Drake. You LCers are always make strawmen on Christianity generally, yet you believe in a false gospel.

[Drake]

Funny Drake. You LCers are always make strawmen on Christianity generally, yet you believe in a false gospel.

The first day in heaven jingle encapsulates popular gospel concepts , Kevin. There's your false gospel.

Drake

[awareness]

Brother John So, the excommunicated LC co-worker in Germany, who was also related to W. Lee by marriage, wrote a paper titled "I MYSELF ALSO AM A MAN" in 1994.
How's this about theosis? :

"It is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before". - St. John of the Cross

There's a realist fer ya ... and an honest Catholic priest.

[Kevin]

The first day in heaven jingle encapsulates popular gospel concepts , Kevin. There's your false gospel.

Drake

I'm not impressed with the likes of you. :rolleyes2:

More strawman :cool:

[Evangelical]

How's this about theosis? :

"It is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before". - St. John of the Cross

There's a realist fer ya ... and an honest Catholic priest.

"distinct from the Being of God " = "but not in the Godhead"

Some quotes from Lee that agree :

"Only God is God, only God has the nature of God, and only God is transcendent and distinctive; therefore, only God is divine."

"Because we partake of the divine nature, it can rightly be said that we are divine. However, this definitely does not mean that we are evolving into God "


We can see that Lee uses the term "being divine" to not mean "being God Himself" but as partaking of the divine nature.

[Evangelical]

I'm not impressed with the likes of you. :rolleyes2:

More strawman :cool:

The strawman people are throwing around here is that Lee taught we become God's being/person/member of the Trinity/Godhead. There is pages of material on the web and numerous quotes by Lee to qualify his statements. The attitude towards Lee therefore is called "unrighteous judgement".

[Evangelical]

Here are a few quotes from CS Lewis about becoming God:

He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a God

"It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship… There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit.”

Many Christians are fine with CS Lewis and don't regard him as a heretic. Here is some praise heaped upon him by gotquestions:

https://www.gotquestions.org/C-S-Lewis.html

"C. S. Lewis is often described as one of the greatest Christian apologists of the twentieth century."

"C. S. Lewis stands as a shining example of the influence a Christian can have in both the university and popular culture. "

"As an apologist and writer, C. S. Lewis was exemplary, and his books are among the most useful ever written"

Yet he never qualified well his statements about being God (capital G too) and most evangelicals forget or ignore he believed or wrote that at all, because evangelicals don't really care about heresy, they care about being popular and relevant.

Yet Lee is treated with disdain despite many pages of material qualifying his statements, and flat out denials that deification means we become God Himself. If this is not hypocrisy I don't know what is. It is also hypocritical to give John Piper a free pass when it is clear that he wrote a prayer of thanks to the most graceful Saint Athanasius, and forgot to thank Jesus at all - "Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father. And thank you, Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, Amen."

[Drake]

I'm not impressed with the likes of you. :rolleyes2:

More strawman :cool:

Ran out of meaningful things to say? So unlike you Kevin, but understandable .

Let’s go back to where you jumped in. You murmured about the “higher gospel” and then quoted a song that explained the concept. I responded with the common gospel in Christianity and quoted a song that explained the concept. That is not a straw man, it is like for like. I quoted one song, but there are many many that convey the same concept. If you don’t like the format then you’ve only yourself to blame... it is yours.

Drake

[Drake]

Let's not sell those short in the NT that performed miracles. If I could heal people, just by my shadow passing over them, I think most, even atheists, would have to consider that I was a form of a god. And if I could forgive sins. Also if I could see into the future.

Are such behaviors characteristic of godmen? Sign me up. But again, in those regards, Lee didn't cut the mustard, and the big talker wasn't a godman. If he didn't make it, do you and I ever have a chance?

And if we can't reach the NT standard, then what's the point of becoming a godman?

I remember in the LC, I felt that I fell so short, because I wasn't like those in the NT. I remember literally praying my guts out because I wasn't like them, to the point of constantly having a knot in my stomach. I really really wanted to be a godman like them.

I finally concluded that God wanted those godmen back then, but ain't doing that today. Even The Recovery didn't recover that ... and won't.

Bro awareness,

Not sure what you prayed for exactly concerning being like those in the NT. The living of a Godman is not a life of extraordinary events .....but rather an extraordinary Life lived in the context of human events.

An example of this not in the NT is Blandina, a young slave sister martyred for her faith who never denied the Lord in spite of the situation. There were no miracles performed unless you consider her remaining steadfast under those circumstances a miracle. Hers was a Godman living... and a Godman dying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blandina

Yet, not every human event entails martyrdom. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling the Apostle charges us.... a daily salvation from whatever human life presents to us empowered by the indwelling resurrected Life of God. A demonstration that His grace is sufficient. That is the Godman living..

Drake

[UntoHim]

The strawman people are throwing around here is that Lee taught we become God's being/person/member of the Trinity/Godhead.
Mr. E.,
Please tell us about the God who we become "in life and nature". I really would like to know about this God. Seriously. This particular life and nature is apparently apart from his "being and person". According to you and Witness Lee, God has two lifes and two natures - one life and nature that we become, and one life and nature that we do not become.:xx: If this nonsense sounds familiar, it's because Witness Lee made a habit out of teaching unbiblical and illogical stuff. Lee also had at least two Jesus(es)....One that rose from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father, and one that "became the life-giving Spirit". Oh, and let's not forget about the two Fathers - One Jesus who is called the Father, and another Father that was on the cross with Jesus:xx:.

As far as using the writings of C.S. Lewis to confirm the orthodoxy of Witness Lee's unbiblical/heretical teachings...well let's just go to another genuine, bonafide theologian, Dr. John Piper, for some assistance, shall we?
"Lewis is not a writer to which we should turn for growth in a careful biblical understanding of Christian doctrine. There is almost no passage of Scripture on which I would turn to Lewis for exegetical illumination. … His value is not in his biblical exegesis. Lewis is not the kind of writer who provides substance for a pastor’s sermons."
excerpt from http://equip.sbts.edu (http://equip.sbts.edu/publications/towers/elephant-in-the-room-evangelicals-continue-to-value-c-s-lewis-despite-theological-differences/)

Actually Mr E., you are missing something very crucial when it comes to considering whether a teaching is biblical or unbiblical, orthodox or heretical. What you don't seem to understand is that an unbiblical/heretical statement/declaration/teaching is unbiblical/heretical no matter who states it, declares it or teaches it. Orthodoxy does not ultimately reside with the teacher(s), it always resides with God himself and his living and abiding Word. I understand that this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, for you are used to your guru being referred to as "the acting god", "the deputy authority", "even if he's wrong, he's right!" "The One Minister with The One Ministry for the Age"...etc, etc..
-

[UntoHim]

The first day in heaven jingle encapsulates popular gospel concepts
Really Drake? So you're like Witness Lee who had the pulse of EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND MINISTRY THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH? You get to tell us what "encapsulates popular gospel concepts"? Please tell us a little more about your omniscient, omnipresent super powers! Inquiring minds want to know!

Ran out of meaningful things to say?
Well, at least he had something meaningful to say in the first place.:rolleyes:
Let’s go back to where you jumped in. You murmured about the “higher gospel” and then quoted a song that explained the concept. I responded with the common gospel in Christianity and quoted a song that explained the concept.

"The common gospel in Christianity"? There you go again. Drake, how would you know what "the common gospel in Christianity" is? You are in the Local Church of Witness Lee...one of the most isolated and insular Christian sects around. Have you been cheating and going to meetings/services of those mooing cows in poor, poor Christianity? If you have, I'd suggest you avoid the ones who are not preaching/teaching a biblical Gospel.
-

[Nell]

Actually Mr E., you are missing something very crucial when it comes to considering whether a teaching is biblical or unbiblical, orthodox or heretical. What you don't seem to understand is that an unbiblical/heretical statement/declaration/teaching is unbiblical/heretical no matter who states it, declares it or teaches it. Orthodoxy does not ultimately reside with the teacher(s), it always resides with God himself and his living and abiding Word. I understand that this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, for you are used to your guru being referred to as "the acting god", "the deputy authority", "even if he's wrong, he's right!" "The One Minister with The One Ministry for the Age"...etc, etc.. -

UntoHim,

Don't forget this post by the E-man which should be considered as the bedrock of whatever is put forth by the E:

.... Straw-man's are part and parcel of this sort of discussion - grow up and get over it. I'm not asking for respect, I'm questioning why ... .

So, he relies on "Straw-man's" (?), if you don't like it it's your own immaturity, respect is not important to him..." So, we really can't expect much from such a one, can we?

Nell

[awareness]

Bro awareness,

Not sure what you prayed for exactly concerning being like those in the NT. The living of a Godman is not a life of extraordinary events .....but rather an extraordinary Life lived in the context of human events.

An example of this not in the NT is Blandina, a young slave sister martyred for her faith who never denied the Lord in spite of the situation. There were no miracles performed unless you consider her remaining steadfast under those circumstances a miracle. Hers was a Godman living... and a Godman dying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blandina

Yet, not every human event entails martyrdom. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling the Apostle charges us.... a daily salvation from whatever human life presents to us empowered by the indwelling resurrected Life of God. A demonstration that His grace is sufficient. That is the Godman living..

Drake
Wow bro Drake, thanks for further definition of what it means to be a godman. You make it sound like it's not what the word godman is pictured at first glace ; like a God Man image. Your definition sounds like it's a mood lifter, with better life habits.

I'm for that brother. But is that what Athanasius meant? is that what Lee meant?

[Ohio]

Really Drake? So you're like Witness Lee who had the pulse of EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND MINISTRY THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH? You get to tell us what "encapsulates popular gospel concepts"? Please tell us a little more about your omniscient, omnipresent super powers! Inquiring minds want to know!

Lee and company constantly used the worst event or superstition in Christianity to characterize the whole. It's basic textbook prejudice.

But, wait. Drake then screams foul when I discuss actual leadership tactics at LSM -- including money scams, molesting the sisters, deceptive coverups, smear campaigns against whistle-blowers, unending lawsuits, quarantines, etc.

But when did I ever characterize the whole LCM (with all of the LC's and members) by these detailed corruptions inside the walls of LSM headquarters.

[Evangelical]

UntoHim, Don't forget this post by the E-man which should be considered as the bedrock of whatever is put forth by the E: So, he relies on "Straw-man's" (?), if you don't like it it's your own immaturity, respect is not important to him..." So, we really can't expect much from such a one, can we?

Well respect is earned, not given, especially since others in this forum have said similar things to me, for example Igzy wrote in this thread:

"As for your weird and unbiblical obsession with names, whatever. Grow up. Get a life. Do something that shows you have some sense. "

And people were mocking my testimony, calling it a joke, and you did call me a troll, numerous times. So don't talk to me about "mutual respect" if you can't show respect yourself.


This only proves what Drake wrote:

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

I was being pragmatic, that straw-mans are expected in this sort of discussion, they are everywhere, in the media, and even in formal debates. I try to address the straw man argument with facts and move on rather than worry about who said what to whom.

However as this post shows some people just want to make it personal.

The "bedrock" I have put forth is credible bible scholars and theologians.

[Evangelical]

Mr. E.,
Please tell us about the God who we become "in life and nature". I really would like to know about this God. Seriously. This particular life and nature is apparently apart from his "being and person". According to you and Witness Lee, God has two lifes and two natures - one life and nature that we become, and one life and nature that we do not become.:xx: If this nonsense sounds familiar, it's because Witness Lee made a habit out of teaching unbiblical and illogical stuff. Lee also had at least two Jesus(es)....One that rose from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father, and one that "became the life-giving Spirit". Oh, and let's not forget about the two Fathers - One Jesus who is called the Father, and another Father that was on the cross with Jesus:xx:.

As far as using the writings of C.S. Lewis to confirm the orthodoxy of Witness Lee's unbiblical/heretical teachings...well let's just go to another genuine, bonafide theologian, Dr. John Piper, for some assistance, shall we?
"Lewis is not a writer to which we should turn for growth in a careful biblical understanding of Christian doctrine. There is almost no passage of Scripture on which I would turn to Lewis for exegetical illumination. … His value is not in his biblical exegesis. Lewis is not the kind of writer who provides substance for a pastor’s sermons."
excerpt from http://equip.sbts.edu (http://equip.sbts.edu/publications/towers/elephant-in-the-room-evangelicals-continue-to-value-c-s-lewis-despite-theological-differences/)

Actually Mr E., you are missing something very crucial when it comes to considering whether a teaching is biblical or unbiblical, orthodox or heretical. What you don't seem to understand is that an unbiblical/heretical statement/declaration/teaching is unbiblical/heretical no matter who states it, declares it or teaches it. Orthodoxy does not ultimately reside with the teacher(s), it always resides with God himself and his living and abiding Word. I understand that this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, for you are used to your guru being referred to as "the acting god", "the deputy authority", "even if he's wrong, he's right!" "The One Minister with The One Ministry for the Age"...etc, etc..
-

You are forgetting that I used John Piper to support Lee in my earlier post. So trying to discredit CS Lewis does not work. Piper, Blackwell, CS Lewis, all match with Lee's doctrine, I could quote any of them.

To some CS Lewis is the greatest theologian ever and to others, like Piper I guess he is not. But like CS Lewis, Piper is supportive of the doctrine of theosis, and explains how evangelicals/protestants indeed do believe in it, they just call it by another name "glorification". With that, Blackwell seems to disagree, mentioning how it is virtually unknown. I see Piper's point about glorification but in essence the doctrine is different - evangelicals see it as a legal contract and something we get because of that contract, and even see it as the end goal of sanctification/holiness - but the actual doctrine of theosis is about a process involving the person of God Himself (as the Spirit) and being transformed into His image. So Piper is just trying to be friendly to Orthodox beliefs in my view, and make evangelicalism match up with Orthodoxy. But it is notable how Piper does not flat out reject the doctrine, or the historical orthodoxy of it. He is so smitten by it that he throws in a prayer to St Athanasius as well.

At this point in time Piper's credibility itself is in question as he has written a prayer to St Athanasius. I'm just interpreting the plain English words he wrote down as you are of Lee. To me there is no reason why one should thank a dead person as if they are standing in front of them and then follow it up by "in Jesus name, Amen". That's a prayer, you are just unwilling to see and admit that it is because of your anti-Lee bias. It's perfectly acceptable to say a respected theologian such as Piper made a mistake in writing a prayer of thanks to Athanasius. I can tell that Piper misspoke because I noticed no one has tried to defend him or qualify his statements for him. Even you didn't, you simply called into question my ability to read English.

I appreciate your take on Orthodoxy as "God Himself and His Word", I tend to agree, and have shown how God's divinity and the Psalm 82 support the doctrine of theosis, but I take a more pragmatic view what talking about particular doctrines. Orthodoxy in practice is defined relative to whichever group is making the claim of Orthodoxy or heresy. For this reason the teacher/person making the claim of Orthodoxy must be evaluated relative to other teachers. This is how the doctrine of the Trinity won over the doctrine of Arianism. It's why heresy to a Catholic and heresy to a Protestant are different things.

[UntoHim]

Piper is supportive of the doctrine of theosis, and explains how evangelicals/protestants indeed do believe in it, they just call it by another name "glorification".

So "theosis" = "gorification", Mr E.? Really? I hope you don't quit your day job for being a wanna-be-theologian (like your acting god Witness Lee) because you and yours are going to be homeless and starve to death if you do. Seriously, my man, you're clueless. You wouldn't know orthodox, evangelical theology if it came up and bit you on the nose. You only know what you google - and you're not very good at that...so hang on to your hat my brother.

But it is notable how Piper does not flat out reject the doctrine, or the historical orthodoxy of it. He is so smitten by it that he throws in a prayer to St Athanasius as well

If you admit that you you believe that Witness Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle (since 1945) and that he is "The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age" and that "the process of sanctification is only taking place in the Local Church of Witness Lee" (per Benson Phillips, the president of LSM) then I will concede that John Piper was giving a prayer to "St. Athanasius".

Man Up or shut up. Or are you like most Local Churchers who are all bark and no bite? You play like you are a man of your convictions...but you always back away when it comes to showing your real convictions. Bring it on. Tell me..tell us, about who Witness Lee is to you. I'll tell you who John Piper, who Billy Graham, who any man on earth is to me. Don't be shy. Don't be coy. Tell us who Witness Lee is to you. If you won't tell us this then you have nothing to say to us. Your credibility is null and void. You are here claiming to be a member of the Local Church (and by extension a follower of the person and work of Witness Lee)...so tell us about your convictions regarding Witness Lee. Tell us about your convictions regarding his teachings. Was he lying or telling the truth when he swore under other in a legal deposition that "he does not consider himself to be an apostle, and he told others to not consider him an apostle"?
-

[Evangelical]

So "theosis" = "gorification", Mr E.? Really? I hope you don't quit your day job for being a wanna-be-theologian (like your acting god Witness Lee) because you and yours are going to be homeless and starve to death if you do. Seriously, my man, you're clueless. You wouldn't know orthodox, evangelical theology if it came up and bit you on the nose. You only know what you google - and you're not very good at that...so hang on to your hat my brother.



I'm not trying to be a theologian, but at least I'm reading their articles and quoting them - I'm just paraphrasing the John Piper article where it says:

What becomes clear when all is taken into account is that Athanasius is pressing on a reality in the Scriptures that we today usually call “glorification”

Glorification (in Western terminology), or deification (according to the East)

He loves the doctrine of deification or theosis, who knew, that evangelicals have been teaching it all along! This is that ground-breaking moment when you realize John Piper is in "the recovery" and bringing back the early church beliefs.

You are talking as if you know what you are talking about and saying how John Piper is a real theologian and all, but you haven't even read his article. What is the use of knowing who the theologians are if you don't know what they are saying?

[Evangelical]

If you admit that you you believe that Witness Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle (since 1945) and that he is "The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age" and that "the process of sanctification is only taking place in the Local Church of Witness Lee" (per Benson Phillips, the president of LSM) then I will concede that John Piper was giving a prayer to "St. Athanasius".

Man Up or shut up. Or are you like most Local Churchers who are all bark and no bite? You play like you are a man of your convictions...but you always back away when it comes to showing your real convictions. Bring it on. Tell me..tell us, about who Witness Lee is to you. I'll tell you who John Piper, who Billy Graham, who any man on earth is to me. Don't be shy. Don't be coy. Tell us who Witness Lee is to you. If you won't tell us this then you have nothing to say to us. Your credibility is null and void. You are here claiming to be a member of the Local Church (and by extension a follower of the person and work of Witness Lee)...so tell us about your convictions regarding Witness Lee. Tell us about your convictions regarding his teachings. Was he lying or telling the truth when he swore under other in a legal deposition that "he does not consider himself to be an apostle, and he told others to not consider him an apostle"?
-

I've made my views on Lee clear in many posts. I think anyone who starts hundreds of churches would be an apostle to be able to do that.

But given that most of your post is ad hominem it is time to quote Drake again:

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

[Unregistered]

So "theosis" = "gorification", Mr E.? Really? I hope you don't quit your day job for being a wanna-be-theologian (like your acting god Witness Lee) because you and yours are going to be homeless and starve to death if you do. Seriously, my man, you're clueless. You wouldn't know orthodox, evangelical theology if it came up and bit you on the nose. You only know what you google - and you're not very good at that...so hang on to your hat my brother.


No, UntoHim.
E is not a wanna-be-theologian.

Some one is a budding higher echelon LSM blended.
Wonder whether he has a day job.
Proving himself in this forum for his place and position among the 'gods'.

[Ohio]

I've made my views on Lee clear in many posts. I think anyone who starts hundreds of churches would be an apostle to be able to do that.

Who are you talking about?

[Evangelical]

Even though Piper equates "glorification" in the West with theosis in the East, I think there are differences that he does not elaborate on but probably could.

The EOC views it as a transformative process which comes by union/cooperation with God:

Theosis, or deification, is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. ... It is considered achievable only through a synergy (or cooperation) between human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).

Evangelicals however view glorification as removal of sin and the sin nature, and it is not a process but a future event. I will quote gotquestions because they usually reflect the view of a majority of evangelicals:

From https://www.gotquestions.org/glorification.html

The short answer is that “glorification” is God's final removal of sin from the life of the saints (i.e., everyone who is saved) in the eternal state (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17). At Christ’s coming, the glory of God (Romans 5:2)—His honor, praise, majesty, and holiness—will be realized in us; instead of being mortals burdened with sin nature

As indicated by the gotquestions explanation of glorification, most evangelicals do not see glorification as the goal of salvation. They see the goal as to be "free from sin" and glorification is a way to achieve that.

What evangelicals and the EOC both share in common is that there will be a process of transformation. The disagreement lies in what is the purpose of that transformation (to be like God or to be free from a sin nature?), how it comes about (a life-long process of cooperation with God?, or a one-off future event?).

[Evangelical]

Who are you talking about?

Witness Lee

[Drake]

Wow bro Drake, thanks for further definition of what it means to be a godman. You make it sound like it's not what the word godman is pictured at first glace ; like a God Man image. Your definition sounds like it's a mood lifter, with better life habits.

I'm for that brother. But is that what Athanasius meant? is that what Lee meant?

Not mood lifter... God’s life.

[UntoHim]

I've made my views on Lee clear in many posts.
Nice dodge. Not quite as smooth as Drake's have been over the years...but can't blame you for tryin. So it's an "ad hominem" for me to request to tell us who Witness Lee is to you? Why are you so afraid to tell us, Mr. E.? Please take me up on my offer. I will readily admit what I think about John Piper praying to Athanasius if you fess up and tell us about who Witness Lee is to you. More to the point...do you subscribe to the OFFICIAL recognition by the OFFICIAL LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH (Blended Brothers et al) that Witness Lee is THE ONE MINISTER WITH THE ONE MINISTRY FOR THE AGE? DO YOU AGREE THAT HE WAS THE ONLY PERSON SPEAKING AS GOD'S ORACLE ON EARTH SINCE 1945? These are yes or no.

You are talking as if you know what you are talking about and saying how John Piper is a real theologian and all, but you haven't even read his article. What is the use of knowing who the theologians are if you don't know what they are saying?

My man, I've forgotten more about what John Piper has taught than you will ever know. (same thing with Witness Lee...while you were wallowing around in poor, poor Christianity I was sitting in one of those hard plastic chairs in Anaheim for 30 2+hour messages for 10 days twice a year for MANY YEARS. You are clueless. Well meaning and probably well intentioned...but clueless. Please go and tell your elder how much you have been reading John Piper. He will rebuke you and make you shout out "Ooooh Loooorrrrrdddd Jeeeesssuuuss" 100 times. Go for it...might do you some good anyhow.

Mr. E. Again. You have ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY until you tell us who Witness Lee is to you. An "apostle" you say? Do you know that Witness Lee NEVER ONE TIME HERE IN AMERICA CLAIMED TO BE AN APOSTLE OF ANY KIND? You do know that Witness Lee swore under oath (under penalty of perjury) that he did not consider himself an apostle and that he asked others to not consider him an apostle..You do know that, don't your? Do you know that he publicly rebuked people (more than one time) for calling him an "apostle"? Of course you don't know this because you're clueless. You don't know anything about the man accept what people have told you and the extremely edited messages and books you have read.

Mr. E., if you would stop googling and start facing up to the realities of the false teachings of Witness Lee for about 5 minutes you would really be better off...and so would my blood pressure...but that's another story.

[Drake]

[COLOR="navy"]"The common gospel in Christianity"? There you go again. Drake, how would you know what "the common gospel in Christianity" is? You are in the Local Church of Witness Lee...one of the most isolated and insular Christian sects around. Have you been cheating and going to meetings/services of those mooing cows in poor, poor Christianity? If you have, I'd suggest you avoid the ones who are not preaching/teaching a biblical Gospel.
-

UntoHim,

Are you really going to dispute that the common belief in Christianity is when you die you go to heaven and will live there forever?

Seriously, if you think it is something different then explain it.

And please stop ranting and raving about who I am supposed to avoid. That was your church life experience, not mine. If you are unclear about my experience then reread my testimony. You are trying to pigeonhole your opponent into your canned concept so you can frame your argument around that. You are doing the same with Evangelical. Also, you seem to be under the mistaken belief the being belligerent strengthens your argument. It really doesn’t.

If the church life you describe was my experience then I probably would have left too. It’s not. Once you accept that your blood pressure will become more manageable.

Drake

[awareness]

Not mood lifter... God’s life.
Oh darn! And I thought we were getting there. So we're back at it again. What does God's life mean?

[Drake]

Oh darn! And I thought we were getting there. So we're back at it again. What does God's life mean?

The divine uncreated life of God..

Every born again believer has it. At the moment we believe we receive it first into our spirit. That is regeneration. Our spirit experiences union with God.. theosis. Then through the course of our human life, the Lord in our spirit moves into all our heart and soul... our mind. emotion, and will. This happens step by step, daily in all our circumstances and situations providing we cooperate with Him. When Paul says be transformed by the renewing of the mind this is what he is referring to. This life long process is theosis, divination of the soul. Then, in an instant, when the Lord returns , the body of every believer is transfigured into an eternal body like unto His own. This the final step of theosis is the redemption of our body.

The first and last step, regeneration of our spirit and the transfiguration of our body are instantaneous. The transformation of our soul is where the struggle occurs. Since God does not force His will on mans will it is up to each individual to choose God. We love many things but God desires we love Him first and foremost and above all. We think about many things but God desires we set our mind in the things of God and upon His Spirit. In this way, we will experience the salvation of our soul in this life.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Are you really going to dispute that the common belief in Christianity is when you die you go to heaven and will live there forever?
First of all, I apologize for being belligerent. You're right, it doesn't help. So let me take a couple of deep breaths here....ah, that's better.

Again...once again Drake...Please explain how you know so much about "the common belief in Christianity." How many Christian churches (who could be considered at least nominally evangelical/orthodox) have you visited over the past few years? We already know that you are not the typical Local Churcher...you know that your hair won't catch on fire when you visit a non-Local Church fellowship...so take a few minutes and tell us about what is preached and taught in these churches.

Ok, another couple of deep breaths....

Since Mr. E., refuses to answer this most salient question, I'll try you.

Please explain to us about the two lives and two natures of God. Actually you really only need to tell us about the life and nature of God that is separate from his being, from his Godhead (that is, the life and nature that we become apart from his being and Godhead) It would be super cool if you could use some verses in the New Testament to clarify.
If the church life you describe was my experience then I probably would have left too. It’s not. Once you accept that your blood pressure will become more manageable.
Well Drake you have spent a lot of time telling us what was NOT your experience, but not very much about what was your experience. Of course one's experience is by definition subjective. I have almost never spoke about my personal experience, which was, for the most part, positive. I find it much more profitable for all concerned to stick to the concrete - the teachings of Witness Lee, the practices either established or promoted by Lee and the history of the LC movement...the good, the bad and the ugly.

For example, your "experience" may not have included running around a college campus and proclaiming "I'm a baby god!" But the fact is that is exactly what happened. Your experience may not have included "we're Witness Lee tape recorders!" But the fact is that is exactly what happened. Your experience may not have included telling some unbeliever that if he "calls Oh, Lord Jesus" several times he will be saved. But the fact is that is exactly what happened. I was in Orange County California back in the day when this nonsense happened on a regular basis. This was not thousands of miles away from Anaheim, away from the eyes and ears of Witness Lee. In fact, Lee promoted these kind of aberrational teachings.

So you can forget about subjective experience. It is actually not relevant to the facts of history. You have your experience. I have mine. But none of that changes what Witness Lee taught and the practices he promoted. Our personal experience doesn't change all the sordid history of promoting evil men, and placing innocent and vulnerable women in harms way. Our personal experience doesn't change the damage done to family relationships, marriages and young people.

So why do I bring all this up (again)? I bring it up because Witness Lee and his teachings and the practices he established and/or promoted are still being extolled as "God's move on earth" and "THE Lord's Recovery". Lee, to this very day, is still being extolled and promoted as "The One Minister with the One Ministry for The Age". To this very day, Lee is being extolled and promoted as the only person on earth who spoke as God's oracle. And the worse thing is that these are not "optional" beliefs for LC members. Those who disagree are shunned at best, and usually made so uncomfortable they simply disappear. Again, your experience, my experience is not relevant to the facts.

[awareness]

Bro Drake, thanks for this attempt to explain the mechanics of theosis, and how we become godmen. Becoming God sounds important. Let me try to understand?

The divine uncreated life of God.. Every born again believer has it. At the moment we believe we receive it first into our spirit. That is regeneration.
No, no. I was told that when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and savior, he came into my heart.

It wasn't until I bumped into the local church that I learned that that was wrong. They showed me the diagram of the tripartite man, so called. That showed, from 1st Thess, spirit, soul, and body, with the spirit at our core. They said that when I accepted Jesus that he came into my spirit. For years I thought he was in my heart.

Our spirit experiences union with God.. theosis.
Sounds more like henosis. But I won't quibble.

Then through the course of our human life, the Lord in our spirit moves into all our heart and soul... our mind. emotion, and will. This happens step by step, daily in all our circumstances and situations providing we cooperate with Him. When Paul says be transformed by the renewing of the mind this is what he is referring to. This life long process is theosis, divination of the soul. Then, in an instant, when the Lord returns , the body of every believer is transfigured into an eternal body like unto His own. This the final step of theosis is the redemption of our body.

The first and last step, regeneration of our spirit and the transfiguration of our body are instantaneous. The transformation of our soul is where the struggle occurs. Since God does not force His will on mans will it is up to each individual to choose God. We love many things but God desires we love Him first and foremost and above all. We think about many things but God desires we set our mind in the things of God and upon His Spirit. In this way, we will experience the salvation of our soul in this life.
Interesting. With our free will we can accept Jesus and instantly he comes into our spirit. But we can't use the same free will to accept him into our heart, mind, will, and emotions, and have it/him instantly.

Doesn't this hermeneutic, of slow drip deification, coming as far as I know, from Nee and Lee, make salvation based upon works?

Hey, I feel like I've been slowly deified, over the years. But it might just be age, and the loss of youthful vigor.

As long as those that have spent more time being deified don't claim that it means they wield God's authority, and that they speak for God, theosis is fine with me. In fact, I think it's pretty cool. If only ... I could use my free will to asked the Lord to instantly deify this lousy body, I'd be peachy keen with it.

Obviously I'm just as disappointed as Paul, concerning seeing the deification of living bodies. But also, I don't see real convincing evidence of slow moving deification.

As I've stated, none of those Evangelical has cited as evidence of theosis, ever became any different than any other human primate.

Moreover, how well we know the Bible, tho a good thing, and know about it, nor how much we know the history of Christianity, and knowing about things like theosis, does any of it constitute deification.

[Sons to Glory!]

Here are some verses from Daily Light July 27th (somehow I got a little ahead in my daily reading):
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated us to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Colossians 1:14-15; Romans 8:29)
And I would also add: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24)
And this:"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them . . . " " . . . having brought many sons to glory . . ." (John 17:22; Hebrews 2:10)
Call me dense (it's OK if you do), but I guess I miss the point of this whole discussion. These verses show that God's intention and work toward us (His "masterpiece" as per Ephesians 2:10) is higher than any of us could know. ("Eye has not seen nor ear heard nor has is come up in the heart of man, what God has in store for them that love Him." 1st Cor. 2:9)

So again, what is the point of the discussion? You think one way about our destiny and I think another way - WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!? It's a little like children on the playground arguing about who can make the best mud pie, when a vacation on the beach awaits them (shades of CS Lewis).
Yes, like this -->:deadhorse:

THE BOTTOM_LINE IS: Our inheritance in Christ is "Joy unspeakable and full of glory and the half has never yet been told!" Let's celebrate!!!
:angel8::party::wow:

[UntoHim]

So again, what is the point of the discussion? You think one way about our destiny and I think another way - WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!?
Actually most of the discussion lately on this thread has little to do with our destiny per se, but more on the here and now, and how the teachings and practices we imbibe and practice have great effect on ourselves and those around us.

And then there is this:
So why do I bring all this up (again)? I bring it up because Witness Lee and his teachings and the practices he established and/or promoted are still being extolled as "God's move on earth" and "THE Lord's Recovery". Lee, to this very day, is still being extolled and promoted as "The One Minister with the One Ministry for The Age". To this very day, Lee is being extolled and promoted as the only person on earth who spoke as God's oracle. And the worse thing is that these are not "optional" beliefs for LC members. Those who disagree are shunned at best, and usually made so uncomfortable they simply disappear. Again, your experience, my experience is not relevant to the facts.
THE BOTTOM_LINE IS: Our inheritance in Christ is "Joy unspeakable and full of glory and the half has never yet been told!" Let's celebrate!!!
Well my brother, the only reason you know that our inheritance is in Christ is that someone taught you about this truth. Yes, you may have read that for yourself in the Bible, but for the truth to become "reality" to you (reality being a secondary meaning of ἀλήθεια Aletheia) there needs to be some expounding and expanding upon this simple yet profound truth.

And speaking of truth...the simple truth is that there are many preachers and teachers, prophets and apostles, out there telling us that they have a word of truth for us, for the church, for the Body of Christ. Some are legitimate, some of only partially legitimate, and others are frauds- imposters-charlatans. The Bible refers to these people as false prophets, false apostles and sheep in wolves clothing.

If every one of us were merely "celebrating" 24X7 (and we will be one day) and there was nobody watching out for the false teachings of the false prophets and the false apostles, then we would not be celebrating for very long - or at the least our celebration would not be in the truth.

So let us celebrate! Let us also be men and women of discernment. We can do both at the same time, I believe.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Well my brother, the only reason you know that our inheritance is in Christ is that someone taught you about this truth. Yes, you may have read that for yourself in the Bible, but for the truth to become "reality" to you (reality being a secondary meaning of ἀλήθεια Aletheia) there needs to be some expounding and expanding upon this simple yet profound truth.

So let us celebrate! Let us also be men and women of discernment. We can do both at the same time, I believe.[/COLOR]
-Ahhh - the "Wise as serpents yet gentle as doves" thing . . . Sure and amen.

I don't know that I agree with you completely on the first paragraph. I have had things spoken directly to me by the Anointing that I'd never heard before. For instance, I was saved at a pretty young age and never spent much time in the Bible then. But when I was 18 I had a miraculous spiritual and physical renewing that came with healing inside and out. At that time the words, "I is dead" kept bubbling up inside me. I had little idea what the ramifications were, and knew no supporting scriptures - just the speaking within, which was so very clear. This really backs up the word in 1 John 2:27: "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you."

[UntoHim]

I have had things spoken directly to me by the Anointing that I'd never heard before...I had little idea what the ramifications were, and knew no supporting scriptures - just the speaking within, which was so very clear. This really backs up the word in 1 John 2:27: "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you."

Your point and example here is valid and is well-taken Son to Glory! However, I must tell you that the point/example you give is not necessarily related to or analogous to the point I was making in my last post. It does remind me, though, of something that happened in Acts 18:
Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

I think there is little doubt that Apollos was under "the anointing", which caused him to be "fervent in spirit" and even "speak and teach accurately the things concerning Jesus". Yet, Priscilla (..gasp...a sister!) and Aquila still went to him to "explain to him the way of God more accurately". I guess that Apollos could have puffed out his chest and rebuked them, proclaiming that he was already "competent in the Scriptures" and "had been instructed in the way of the Lord". (I suppose he could have also rebuked Priscilla for having the gall to presume that a woman could teach a man "more accurately":eek:)

My point is simple. We are always in need of something or someone outside of ourselves, or outside of our immediately sphere of influence, or even outside of our immediate experience or knowledge of the Scriptures, to give us perspective. Our individual understanding and discernment can be, at times, somewhat myopic and misguided. We may very well be "competent in the Scriptures" and even "fervent in spirit", but still be in need of someone to "explain the way of God more accurately".

It seems to me that Witness Lee was a man who desperately needed someone(s) to explain the way of God more accurately to him. History tells us that many faithful ones attempted to do just that...people from within the LC movement, and even some from without the LC movement. Lee refused such correction/fellowship at every turn. Instead of being humble like Apollos, he ignored such ones coming to him (if they were lucky) and more often he would viciously attack and defame the character of the ones from within the LC movement, and as for the ones from outside the movement, well, they received much harsher treatment from Witness.

And now the "Blended Brothers" have taken on the same attitude as Witness Lee. In fact, the entire Local Church movement is saturated and polluted with this kind of arrogant and haughty attitude.

Ok, end of rant. It just breaks my heart to see such a large lot of God's people carried away from the truth. Undoubtedly, undeniably there is some "accurate speaking and teaching" from the ministry of Witness Lee, but there is also a desperate need for more accuracy, and even more for a large dose of humility. God have mercy.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

My point is simple. We are always in need of something or someone outside of ourselves, or outside of our immediately sphere of influence, or even outside of our immediate experience or knowledge of the Scriptures, to give us perspective. Our individual understanding and discernment can be, at times, somewhat myopic and misguided. We may very well be "competent in the Scriptures" and even "fervent in spirit", but still be in need of someone to "explain the way of God more accurately".

It seems to me that Witness Lee was a man who desperately needed someone(s) to explain the way of God more accurately to him. History tells us that many faithful ones attempted to do just that...people from within the LC movement, and even some from without the LC movement. Lee refused such correction/fellowship at every turn. Instead of being humble like Apollos, he ignored such ones coming to him (if they were lucky) and more often he would viciously attack and defame the character of the ones from within the LC movement, and as for the ones from outside the movement, well, they received much harsher treatment from Witness.You bet and good example (regarding Apollos)! We certainly all need clarifying fellowship and also the scriptures to show us/confirm what the Anointing is telling us. While the Anointing telling me at that young age, "I is dead," was quite rudimentary, the scripture and fellowship on this subject these last 40+ years have been more than a little enhancing to that speaking!

I read an account of how TA Sparks and WL had fellowship regarding the so-called "Ground of Oneness" back in the 1960s. Sparks shared about how it would be erroneous and unprofitable to go down that road and hang the movement's hat on. In the first meeting WL seemed to agree, but went back to his previous thinking some time afterward and stuck with it when getting with Sparks a second time. (These days I appreciate and enjoy Sparks' writings much, much more.)

[Evangelical]

As we can see, most people do not have a good reason why Lee's views on salvation and becoming god are heretical.

The only reasons offered so far are:
- "it's not in the bible" - knowledgeably theologians like Blackwell, Piper and others would disagree, they explain the teaching in a historical, positive and biblical way.
- "something about Lee not calling himself an apostle blah blah" - All of the reasons do not hinge upon what Lee actually wrote or said or was qualified, but upon irrelevant "Ad hominem" arguments, such as my credibility or my ability to use Google.

Furthermore, they do not have a good case to declare the orthodox views of salvation and deification as heretical, given that it is so entrenched in Christianity even in Protestantism (the Reformers believed in it, and it is said to be called "glorification" according to Piper). In Protestantism the idea is still there, somewhere, but has been overlooked and replaced with focusing mostly upon justification and the goal to be holy and without sin.

They are not aware of or deliberately ignore the wealth of material out there by scholars like Piper and Blackwell, in order to present Lee as a heretic, not realizing that they are arguing against a belief that the disciples of the disciples of the apostles held - that salvation is to become united with God. Lee himself said nothing that others have not said before, namely, early church fathers, the Reformers, and the beloved CS Lewis.

In fact, it can be shown that Lee's view of salvation is almost identical to the teachings of the Orthodox church:

The goal of salvation according to Orthodoxy is (from https://carm.org/what-is-theosis )

Such, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, is the final goal at which every Christian must aim: to become god, to attain theosis, ‘deification’ or ‘divinization’. For Orthodoxy our salvation and redemption mean our deification."


Lee also viewed deification as our salvation and redemption:

“If God is still God, and I am still I, then I have not been saved yet! " ~ Witness Lee

[UntoHim]

Mr. E., why did you just use a small "g" instead of a Capitol "G" like your One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age uses? Are you backing down a little bit on this? You better hope someone from Anaheim does't see this....if it gets back to your elders you're going to be in some hot water!

So you're going to keep insisting that "theosis" or "divination" equals "glorification"? Your Acting God never made this correlation, so I don't understand why you insist on this obvious blunder. No, Blackwell didn't say this and neither did Piper. (and neither did Matt Slick in the reference you gave us) You are apparently not used to a careful reading of the views of educated, genuine and professional theologians (and who could blame a follower of Witness Lee for this).

Ok, let me try this one again. This is an open book test my brother! Please feel free to quote Witness Lee in your answer.
Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)

Sorry, but asking questions for clarifications of one's beliefs is not an ad hominem. (Neither is asking for somebody to clarify their beliefs regarding the undisputed leader of a movement...but I'll let you slide on that one for now).
-

[Evangelical]

Mr. E., why did you just use a small "g" instead of a Capitol "G" like your One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age uses? Are you backing down a little bit on this? You better hope someone from Anaheim does't see this....if it gets back to your elders you're going to be in some hot water!-

I should have used capital G yes to write -

As we can see, most people do not have a good reason why Lee's views on salvation and becoming God are heretical.

I am not aware of any rule that we must use capital G.

The psalms uses little g and so did Witness Lee sometimes in his books.

Since there is only one God, and "God" is not God's name, if we say god or God it does not matter. Jews have rules about these things.



[COLOR="Navy"]
So you're going to keep insisting that "theosis" or "divination" equals "glorification"? Your Acting God never made this correlation, so I don't understand why you insist on this obvious blunder. No, Blackwell didn't say this and neither did Piper. (and neither did Matt Slick in the reference you gave us) You are apparently not used to a careful reading of the views of educated, genuine and professional theologians (and who could blame a follower of Witness Lee for this).


Piper did indeed equate them in his article:

What becomes clear when all is taken into account is that Athanasius is pressing on a reality in the Scriptures that we today usually call “glorification”

Glorification (in Western terminology), or deification (according to the East)

Reading this in plain English, it says:

The process of transformation is a reality - it's called glorification in the West, and deification/theosis in the East.

Piper is equating them and putting the differences down to a different in terminology:
What becomes clear when all is taken into account is that Athanasius is pressing on a reality in the Scriptures that we today usually call “glorification” but is using the terminology of 2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:29, “Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” He is pressing the destiny and the glory of being a brother of the second person of the Trinity, and “sharing in his nature.”47



But I know there is a difference, and here is where I disagree with Piper (and agree with Lee) - I wrote a post about it earlier, and wrote:

What evangelicals and the EOC both share in common is that there will be a process of transformation. The disagreement lies in what is the purpose of that transformation (to be like God or to be free from a sin nature?), how it comes about (a life-long process of cooperation with God?, or a one-off future event?).


Piper's article does two things:
a) shows the idea of deification is a biblical reality, and not such a heresy as some say it is. So it is incorrect to say "it isn't in the bible", if theologians like Piper endorse it.
b) Praises Augustine. Praise for Augustine and the doctrine of becoming God amounts to endorsement of Orthodox beliefs. Piper seems to endorse the beliefs and then equate them to glorification.

I disagree with Piper that it is the same as glorification, I posted about this before. What is remarkable to me is how positive Piper is towards Augustine and the general idea of transformation to become like God.

Piper writes:

My present understanding would go like this: the ultimate end of creation is neither being nor seeing, but delighting and displaying.

So the goal of salvation is to delight and display God. Where have I heard that before? That's right, Witness Lee.

"delight and display" = "enjoy and express".

The goal of salvation is to enjoy and express God. Or "We were created by God as a tripartite man with a spirit, a soul, and a body for us to contain, enjoy, and express God"

So Piper and Witness Lee and the EOC basically agree. They all see something more to salvation than merely getting to heaven when we die or escaping hell. They affirm what Athanasius taught, and do not see him as a man who was orthodox most of the time (on the Trinity, etc) but heretical at other times (with becoming God).


[COLOR="Navy"]
Ok, let me try this one again. This is an open book test my brother! Please feel free to quote Witness Lee in your answer.
Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)

When I get more time I will elaborate on this, and I don't think you will be disappointed ;)


[COLOR="Navy"]
Sorry, but asking questions for clarifications of one's beliefs is not an ad hominem. (Neither is asking for somebody to clarify their beliefs regarding the undisputed leader of a movement...but I'll let you slide on that one for now).
-

Yes but you attached that to my credibility or not, which is ad hominem, or literally "arguing to the human".

[awareness]

I should have used capital G yes to write -

As we can see, most people do not have a good reason why Lee's views on salvation and becoming God are heretical.

I am not aware of any rule that we must use capital G.

The psalms uses little g and so did Witness Lee sometimes in his books.

Since there is only one God, and "God" is not God's name, if we say god or God it does not matter. Jews have rules about these things.
But the Greek authors didn't. They didn't use caps. 'Cept they weren't saying God. They were saying theos.

[Evangelical]

But the Greek authors didn't. They didn't use caps. 'Cept they weren't saying God. They were saying theos.

yes, and theos means God.

[Drake]

Please explain to us about the two lives and two natures of God. Actually you really only need to tell us about the life and nature of God that is separate from his being, from his Godhead (that is, the life and nature that we become apart from his being and Godhead) It would be super cool if you could use some verses in the New Testament to clarify.


Hi UntoHim,

I have been out of pocket since you posted this question. I read it and have been meaning to respond to it because I believe it is perhaps the most relevant and insightful question posed in this forum for a long time.

I am coming up for air soon and will respond shortly. Just wanted you to know I am not ignoring your question and look forward to a meaningful dialogue on it.

Thanks
Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Hi UntoHim,

I have been out of pocket since you posted this question. I read it and have been meaning to respond to it because I believe it is perhaps the most relevant and insightful question posed in this forum for a long time.

I am coming up for air soon and will respond shortly. Just wanted you to know I am not ignoring your question and look forward to a meaningful dialogue on it.

Thanks
DrakeAnd, to all parties on this particular discussion, I hope it is simple enough for me to understand! :xx:

[awareness]

And, to all parties on this particular discussion, I hope it is simple enough for me to understand! :xx:
I'm keenly interested in the two lives and two natures of God too. But actually, if each of us become God in life and nature, there may be as many as a billion lives and natures, plus the life and nature of God. Lives and natures here. Lives and natures there. Lives and natures everywhere. Sounds sorta like pantheism. But add God and it's panentheism.

And I guess Evangelical is out of pocket too.

[Sons to Glory!]

I'm keenly interested in the two lives and two natures of God too. But actually, if each of us become God in life and nature, there may be as many as a billion lives and natures, plus the life and nature of God. Lives and natures here. Lives and natures there. Lives and natures everywhere. Sounds sorta like pantheism. But add God and it's panentheism.

And I guess Evangelical is out of pocket too.Well, the grain of wheat that fell into the ground to die, brought forth many grains. They were all of the same life and nature, right? (in response, please be gentle on my simple mind . . .)

[UntoHim]

Just wanted you to know I am not ignoring your question and look forward to a meaningful dialogue on it.

That's great Drake, I'm looking forward to the meaningful dialogue. Maybe you could team up with Mr. E and you guys can make it a "tag team".:)
Three rounds...winner takes all!:lurk5:
-

[awareness]

Well, the grain of wheat that fell into the ground to die, brought forth many grains. They were all of the same life and nature, right? (in response, please be gentle on my simple mind . . .)
I like the life and nature of wheat metaphor. Except in the theme of theosis, the wheat has its life and nature but it's not enough. It needs an additive ; a divine life and nature is needed.

Does that actually happen -- the slow process of deification -- or the gradual infusion of God's life and nature -- over time? That's the critical question. Does it actually happen?

[Evangelical]

Ok, let me try this one again. This is an open book test my brother! Please feel free to quote Witness Lee in your answer.
Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)
-

Now I can answer the question.

In Genesis we see that God gave life and His nature to His creation - He created Adam in His own image. This is also spoken of in Romans 1:20:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So there is a thing called the life and nature of God in His creation, eve the life God gives us as human beings (and first Adam) and the life God gives us as believers.

We partake of the life and nature of God that is not in the Godhead/Trinity, the one He gives to His creation. In other words, we share His life and nature but not His personality -we retain our own personality.

Then there is the life and nature of God in the Trinity, and we could call this God's personality or person.

Lee wrote "“Nevertheless, we must know that we do not share God's Person and cannot be worshipped"

In a follow up post I will go into a more formal definition of life and nature.

[Evangelical]

Now some more formal definitions of life and nature. These are partly dictionary definitions and paraphrases of Lee's ministry.

Life


Life - life is the ability to live.
God's life - His ability to live and exist as God.
Human life - the ability of a human to live and exist as a human.


Example:

"God's life given to us" = "His ability to live forever given to us" = "Eternal life".


Nature

Nature - the quality
Quality - the totality of features and characteristics
God's nature - the totality of God's features and characteristics.
God's qualities - love, light, life, righteousness, oneness etc.


Examples:

"Partake of God's life" means:

To receive the ability to live forever


"Partake of God's nature" means:

To receive God's qualities including love, light life, righteousness etc.


With these definitions, we can see how we may share God's life and nature but not in the Godhead:

- God's life and nature in the Godhead is His own that no one else but a person of the Trinity may have.
- God's life and nature that He shares with us is the ability to live forever and His qualities that He gives us.

Comparing these two statements we can see that there are not two divine lives and natures but one divine life and nature.

- The ability to live forever is the same ability God has Himself - after giving us His ability to live, it does not become a different ability, that can exist apart from God.
- The nature that He gives us is the same nature that He Himself has - after giving us His nature it does not become a third nature, which is a confusion between man and God or a third nature.

The previous two statements are paraphrases of the iron in fire or tea-water, or Moses's burning bush analogies.

Sidenote:
Evangelical preachers think that the ability to live and have God's nature constitutes God performing improvements on the human condition, leading to a third nature and third life which if we take to its logical conclusion means it is able to exist and function apart from God (if it wants to). Using the iron-fire analogy this would be like the iron becoming a third substance - steel, which remains as steel when the fire is put out. In contrast, the doctrine of theosis is about human's partaking of God's life and nature without producing a third substance - if the fire would be removed from the iron, the iron is still iron, no steel is produced.

For anyone not familiar with the analogy, the iron represents humanity, the fire represents God. Iron becoming fire is heretical because it implies man becoming God in the Trinity/Godhead. Likewise - fire becoming iron, is heretical as it implies God in His person becoming man. Iron when heated, being indistinguishable from fire, however, is not a heretical belief, as long as the iron and the fire does not stop being iron and fire. Iron and fire becoming a third substance, steel, is a heretical belief because it implies a confusion between man and God. The iron and fire analogy was very helpful to me to understand the concepts and know when something is heretical and when it is not.

[Kevin]

Hank Hanegraaff, Walter Martin's Greedy Judas, the Fake Bible Answer Man (https://youtu.be/b5nVlwdOGoE?t=2h44m7s)

[awareness]

Hank Hanegraaff, Walter Martin's Greedy Judas, the Fake Bible Answer Man (https://youtu.be/b5nVlwdOGoE?t=2h44m7s)
If only it were true that, theosis were true. Then there might be hope for bro Hank.

[Sons to Glory!]

So in a paragraph or less, can someone summarize what this whole discussion was really about, bottom-line? (be a good "attorney" and do a very brief synopsis of both sides)

The shorter the better . . . (and if this can't be succinctly done, I don't think it's worth knowing)

As radio personality Dennis Prager says, "Clarity is better than agreement."

Thanks!

[UntoHim]

Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)

Mr E.
Your two posts do not even begin to address the question at hand. Your posts conveniently left out the operative word - BECOME. To partake is not to become. To share is not to become. Witness Lee said WE BECOME GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE.

Witness Lee, knowingly, intentionally, deliberately used a specific word/term that has huge, far-reaching theological implications. Of course, as has been duly noted, Witness Lee was no theologian. He really had no business delving into such theological matters. And the more that he tried to explain away his blunders, the more he dug himself into a deeper hole. Now his followers are left to follow the same pattern - Dig and dig until you confuse the matter so badly that it becomes just plain silly.
-

[Evangelical]

This is a really silly argument because Athanasius used the term "become God" so perhaps Lee was being consistent with that?:

Athanasius said:

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

So it was Athanasius who first knowingly, intentionally, deliberately used a specific word/term that has huge, far-reaching theological implications.

Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome, Gregory of Nazianzus and others also used the term "become".

Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology also says: It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.

So maybe you should take it up with historians and early church fathers and the theologians about the use of the term, because the term is ubiquitous in Christianity.

In your previous post you interpreted "become" as two Divine lifes and natures, which amounts to saying there are two God's. That is your interpretation that there are two God's, not mine or Lee's or Athanasiu's. I don't know any Christian who would entertain the thought that there are two God's. Instead perhaps there are different meanings of the word "become", but only one life and nature.

[Sons to Glory!]

So Evengelical - can you summarize your particular perspective of this topic in a short to medium paragraph?

[Evangelical]

So Evengelical - can you summarize your particular perspective of this topic in a short to medium paragraph?

Which particular topic did you have in mind?

[Sons to Glory!]

Which particular topic did you have in mind?The theosis topic.

There have been pages and pages of replies and counter-replies that have been hard (at least for me) to follow. Hoping to get something concise I can grasp more easily. Thanks.

[Evangelical]

The theosis topic. There have been pages and pages of replies and counter-replies that have been hard (at least for me) to follow. Hoping to get something concise I can grasp more easily. Thanks.

So Evengelical - can you summarize your particular perspective of this topic in a short to medium paragraph?

On the Orthodoxy of the Doctrine:

Theosis is an orthodox doctrine, being found in the early writings of the church such as Athanasius and others, and evolving from the Bible itself, as Protestant historians and theologians can confirm.

On the Scriptural support for the Doctrine:

The historians and theologians can help us understand the early church perspective and they say that the interpretation of Psalm 82 was that it is God's will for humanity to become divinized. People who say it "is not in the bible" say that because they are reading the bible with a modern perspective.

On the acceptance of the doctrine in Christianity:
As I have shown by referencing his article, theologians like Piper do not deny the doctrine or declare the early church father Athanasius to have heretical views, rather, they praise him and equate the doctrine with their evangelical understanding of "glorification". Athanasius is a beloved figure in all major branches of Christianity. To declare him a heretic would also be to declare his views about the Trinity as being heretical, when he was a key figure in the defense of the Trinity.

In actuality, Protestantism has no clear doctrine of theosis like found in the Orthodox church or in the recovery. It was a doctrine that was believed by Luther and Calvin to a degree, but then lost or ignored by later adherents, until today when some of the most diluted salvation messages are about getting past the pearly gates of heaven. Over time, the salvation message became about justification, rather than theosis, and so the original goal of salvation was lost. Despite the claims of many, John 3:16 is not the goal of salvation, but the means to that goal. The EOC I believe still retain the original meaning and goal of salvation in their ideas about theosis, whereas the Catholic church and its protestant daughters lost it.

What is heretical and what is orthodox:

There are only two possible ways that this doctrine could be heretical:
1) if it confuses human and Divine natures by stating they become a third human-divine nature.
2) if it states that humanity becomes divinity in the sense of becoming part of the Trinity/Godhead, God's own Person.


Was Lee's doctrine heretical or othodox?:

Given these two conditions for orthodoxy, it can easily be proven that Lee's thinking was orthodox:

Lee believed that we "become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead".
Lee wrote "“Nevertheless, we must know that we do not share God's Person and cannot be worshipped".

What real heretics say about it

Mormons believe that man becomes gods in themselves, and ruling their own planets, without any qualification of what that means or meeting the two conditions for orthodoxy I mentioned before. Their doctrine is truly a heresy because they believe in some third and distinct human-divine nature.

[Sons to Glory!]

What happened to the one paragraph? Guess you couldn't condense this into a concise thought, but thanks for responding at least.

Oh well, I'll read this tomorrow when my brain is fresher . . .

[UntoHim]

Theosis is an orthodox doctrine
"Theosis" or "Divination", like any doctrine or teaching, is only an orthodox doctrine if it is taught and believed within the confines of the Word of God. The Word of God does NOT teach or even imply that we are BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE. It simply does not. To quote a real apostle and the greatest theologian to ever live..."But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8) So if we are not to listen to an angel from heaven, what shall we say about Anthanasius, or any of the church Fathers or any mere man? Take care, lest you find yourself in the realm of the accursed.

The historians and theologians can help us understand the early church perspective and they say that the interpretation of Psalm 82 was that it is God's will for humanity to become divinized. People who say it "is not in the bible" say that because they are reading the bible with a modern perspective.
Psalm 82 does not say that WE ARE BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE. It says no such thing. You can quote church fathers, commentators, Nee, Lee, Martin Luther or Martin Luther King...it says no such things.
As I have shown by referencing his article, theologians like Piper do not deny the doctrine or declare the early church father Athanasius to have heretical views, rather, they praise him and equate the doctrine with their evangelical understanding of "glorification".
Wow, this is getting old. John Piper does not teach that WE ARE BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE. He teaches no such thing. If he did, he would be the laughing stock of the Christian community. (Like Witness Lee already is to a great extant.)

Despite the claims of many, John 3:16 is not the goal of salvation, but the means to that goal.Many? What many? I've never heard anyone teach that John 3:16 is the goal of salvation, and neither have you. There is no such teaching in evangelical/orthodox Christianity.The rest of your post is simply an argument from silence at best, and really is nothing more that flat out circular reasoning, and I don't have the time or patients for such nonsense tonight.
-

[Evangelical]

"Theosis" or "Divination", like any doctrine or teaching, is only an orthodox doctrine if it is taught and believed within the confines of the Word of God. The Word of God does NOT teach or even imply that we are BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE. It simply does not. To quote a real apostle and the greatest theologian to ever live..."But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8) So if we are not to listen to an angel from heaven, what shall we say about Anthanasius, or any of the church Fathers or any mere man? Take care, lest you find yourself in the realm of the accursed.
Psalm 82 does not say that WE ARE BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE. It says no such thing. You can quote church fathers, commentators, Nee, Lee, Martin Luther or Martin Luther King...is says no such things.


I am talking about the exegesis. I said that's how the early church interpreted it. The early church interpreted this passage in terms of us becoming gods or sons of God.

To support this, here are quotes from the Blackwell article I gave in an earlier post:

the idea arose from early Christian readings of the Bible. Our earliest evidence of believers being called gods actually goes back to the lips of Jesus in John 10:34 when he quotes from Psalm 82:6, which reads: “I said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’” The church has followed Jesus in this interpretive stream, although they have spent more time exploring this passage in view of wider biblical contexts than focusing on Jesus’ use of it in the Gospel of John. With this, two primary exegetical themes come out of their readings of Psalm 82: (1) gods are immortals and (2) sons of God are gods.

two primary exegetical themes come out of their readings of Psalm 82: (1) gods are immortals and (2) sons of God are gods.

To be a son of God, then, means being a god, in some sense.

So according to the theologian Blackwell, the early church Christians referred to themselves as gods. This would explain why so many early church fathers talk about "becoming God" and early church Christians would not had a problem with it unlike so many evangelicals today have.

He does say that becoming God is metaphorical, but explains his meaning of the term "become God" as to become part of God himself, the Trinity. Of course, Lee would agree with this as well.

Wow, this is getting old. John Piper does not teach that WE ARE BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE. He teaches no such thing. If he did, he would be the laughing stock of the Christian community. (Like Witness Lee already is to a great extant.)

I never said he did teach that. Rather, I said that he does not say Athanasius is a heretic or his doctrine. Instead, he praises him. In fact, Piper tries to bridge the doctrine with evangelicalism by comparing it to the doctrine of "glorification".

Many? What many? I've never heard anyone teach that John 3:16 is the goal of salvation, and neither have you. There is no such teaching in evangelical/orthodox Christianity.The rest of your post is simply an argument from silence at best, and really is nothing more that flat out circular reasoning, and I don't have the time or patients for such nonsense tonight.
-
I can quote numerous Christian websites that state eternal life is the goal of salvation. This is from bible study.org and note the part I highlighted in bold.

http://www.biblestudy.org/bible-study-by-topic/the-plan-of-salvation.html

Each believer is promised that he or she, after living a faithful life to the Father, will be resurrected from dead and given an eternal life full of love and purpose. God personally promises that those who overcome shall be given ALL things. Even more amazing is that God will consider those who are saved as part of his family (Revelation 21:7)! This is the ultimate goal of salvation (Revelation 20:6).

[Evangelical]

What happened to the one paragraph? Guess you couldn't condense this into a concise thought, but thanks for responding at least.

Oh well, I'll read this tomorrow when my brain is fresher . . .

I condensed to one paragraph per topic.

[Evangelical]

To clarify the reason I quote theologians like Blackwell and Piper is not because I think they are teaching exactly what Lee is teaching, but because they are so accommodating of the idea of theosis and do not discount it.

If the idea was so wrong, we should expect them to be denying it, calling it a heresy or error, and showing how it came from paganism or some other heretical source. However, they explain how it comes from the Psalms and words of Jesus Himself and was existing in the early church.

I was expecting them to say something like CARM does about it. A website like CARM (https://carm.org/what-is-theosis) says this:

False religions sometimes teach that we can become godlike and even gods.

Blackwell on the other hand is not shy to call Christians gods, and says:
believers are adopted and become gods by grace.

We begin to look so much like our immortal and holy God that we too might be called gods. Thus, Emerson may have been onto something when he said, “A man is a god in ruins.”

According to CARM, then, Blackwell might be teaching a "false religion".

CARM also says:

In addition, CARM does not support the Eastern Orthodox Church and considers it to contain serious errors. We strongly recommend that the Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, be avoided.

In contrast, Blackwell and Piper do not use such strong language, and even explain the doctrine in terms of Protestant understanding (sanctification, or glorification).

The authors at CARM are not genuine, bonafide theologians, and their view might reflect the view of the average evangelical. However the genuine bonafide theologians speak of theosis in a way that we could even say is an endorsement. As Blackwell wrote , "The idea is virtually unknown among Protestants".

[awareness]

"Theosis" or "Divination", like any doctrine or teaching, is only an orthodox doctrine if it is taught and believed within the confines of the Word of God. The Word of God does NOT teach or even imply that we are BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE. It simply does not. To quote a real apostle and the greatest theologian to ever live..."But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8) So if we are not to listen to an angel from heaven, what shall we say about Anthanasius, or any of the church Fathers or any mere man? Take care, lest you find yourself in the realm of the accursed.
Paul never claimed that he became God in life and nature. Neither did he claim that for any of his converts.

And Anthanasius got fired, and banished, numerous times. He never became God in life and nature either.

So far, no one has become God in life and nature, except those buying into Witness Lee, and then only in their imaginations ... not in their life and nature.

Theosis is a pipe dream, dreamed up by imperial Christians, seeking imperial power over the church. History teaches us what that became. Lee copied that system, as pope Lee ... he too wanted to use theosis to empower himself ... and it worked. Not on me.

Such claptrap works only on the ignorant ... and beguiled fanatics ; oh, and those that like funny hats.

[Sons to Glory!]

Upon reading this (with a fresh, morning mind), I see one thing missing. One little thing. Oh what could it be - SCRIPTURE!:rollingeyesfrown:

When asked to present a concise statement of what we believe, I think it behooves us to give that answer, from scripture, and do it in such a way as to not muddy it in a whole bunch of "they said" speak. Short. Living. To the point. (I heard that somewhere before . . .)

[Evangelical]

Upon reading this (with a fresh, morning mind), I see one thing missing. One little thing. Oh what could it be - SCRIPTURE!:rollingeyesfrown:

When asked to present a concise statement of what we believe, I think it behooves us to give that answer, from scripture, and do it in such a way as to not muddy it in a whole bunch of "they said" speak. Short. Living. To the point. (I heard that somewhere before . . .)

You have asked for Scripture before. In my post #294 I gave Scripture and you were the only one to respond to that in a neutral way. I have been using Scripture more than anyone, and there is even more Scripture in the links from Piper and Blackwell that I have referenced. Everything comes back to the early church's understanding of Psalm 82 and when Jesus said "ye are gods".

I am not going to continue summarizing my posts if people are lazy. Everyone is capable of doing their own research. When you write many posts and do in-depth research as I have, continuing to ask for summaries and scripture is bordering on rudeness.

It can easily be seen that most people's posts here are not using Scripture but opinions.

For example, UntoHim warned about listening to Anthanasius and quoted Galatians 1:8, but all of the theologians like Piper and Blackwell would be guilty of that - Piper even thanked Anthanasius in a way which is more prayer-like than not.

Galatians 1:8 mentions gospels contrary to that which Paul preached. So far, my research into the early church beliefs has found that the early church gospel included theosis. And that is why the defenders of the Trinity like Athanasius believed in it.
So perhaps it is the modern day gospel with the goal of only getting to Heaven which is the "other gospel" contrary to Paul's.

[Sons to Glory!]

Yeah, yer right . . . sorta. It was just all this discussion - back and forth and forth and back - it all kinda got lost in the sauce for me and I was hoping to get it distilled down into something, sorta, kinda, basically ineligible.

What I'm realizing these days is - if it ain't simple to grasp, it probably aint the Lord.

[Evangelical]

Yeah, yer right . . . sorta. It was just all this discussion - back and forth and forth and back - it all kinda got lost in the sauce for me and I was hoping to get it distilled down into something, sorta, kinda, basically ineligible.

What I'm realizing these days is - if it ain't simple to grasp, it probably aint the Lord.

Fair enough.

The simplest passages I can think of are these ones:

2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

2 Peter 1:4 shows that it is God's will for us to participate in the divine nature.

Romans 8:29 shows the goal of salvation to be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother.

2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:29 is basically theosis. The gospel is about bringing many sons to glory.

John 3:16 has been interpreted by many that salvation is to not perish (in hell) and live forever (in heaven).

In contrast, the early church seems to have seen salvation in light of 2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:28. The EOC seems to have retained this early church tradition of keeping theosis as the focus. If that is what the early church believed, then the apostle Paul must have contained theosis as part of his gospel such as - Hebrews 2 and Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

[awareness]

Fair enough.

The simplest passages I can think of are these ones:

2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

2 Peter 1:4 shows that it is God's will for us to participate in the divine nature.

Romans 8:29 shows the goal of salvation to be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother.

2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:29 is basically theosis. The gospel is about bringing many sons to glory.

John 3:16 has been interpreted by many that salvation is to not perish (in hell) and live forever (in heaven).

In contrast, the early church seems to have seen salvation in light of 2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:28. The EOC seems to have retained this early church tradition of keeping theosis as the focus. If that is what the early church believed, then the apostle Paul must have contained theosis as part of his gospel such as - Hebrews 2 and Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
Then Lee's Recovery movement is superfluous. The EOC has had it since the beginning. Lee recovered nothing.

Your verse support is weak. Can you point me to where Jesus teaches theosis? Seems if it's such an important doctrine Jesus would have taught it.

[UntoHim]

Ok Mr E., I'm only going to do this one more time. Your posts are becoming very repetitive and decidedly unresponsive to the legitimate concerns and contentions of other posters. I will give you one more time to directly respond. One more time I will point out to you and the readers/lurkers that Witness Lee plainly and clearly taught that we "BECOME God in life and nature". Now, just like Witness Lee, you have failed to show how this teaching is scriptural, or how it can be accepted as falling within the bounds of orthodoxy. Again, you have not addressed the salient concerns regarding the word "Become". Please don't be like Witness Lee whose answer to these kind of questions and concerns was "because I said so", or "well, that guy over there taught something like this and you don't call him heretical!". That will not cut it here on this forum.

The simplest passages I can think of are these ones:
2 Peter 1:4 shows that it is God's will for us to participate in the divine nature.
To participate in the divine nature is NOT to BECOME God in life and nature.
Romans 8:29 shows the goal of salvation to be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother.
To be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother is NOT to BECOME God in life and nature
Hebrews 2 and Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
To not conform to the pattern of this world and be transformed by the renewing of your mind is NOT to BECOME God in life and nature.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Then Lee's Recovery movement is superfluous. The EOC has had it since the beginning. Lee recovered nothing.

Your verse support is weak. Can you point me to where Jesus teaches theosis? Seems if it's such an important doctrine Jesus would have taught it.Some other verses that speak of this mystery would be in John 17, right? The Lord has much praying to the Father about our oneness with the Triune God and God's glory being given to believers.

Verse 21:"That they all may be one, even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us . . ."

Verse 22: "And the glory you have given Me I have given to them . . ."

One might also look to Romans 8 verses 9-11. Seems like lots of blending of God & man there (dare I say "mingling"?).

And as Paul says in Colossians 1:27 about this great mystery" "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

I still think the bottom-line is that this subject is (sorta like my dad would say - like trying to corner jello) a mystery. As is written, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those that love Him."

Yes, it probably is too far to say we become God, but then God is the ultimate giver! "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when He is revealed, we will be like Him; for we will see him just as He is." My my - what is this!!??

I think what He is doing is and will be an entirely new creation and critter (as a brother I know likes to say) - God's masterpiece!

[awareness]

Good response Sons. Thanks.

Some other verses that speak of this mystery would be in John 17, right? Much praying about oneness with the Triune God and God's glory being given to believers, right?

Verse 21:"That they all may be one, even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us . . ."

Verse 22: "And the glory you have given Me I have given to them . . ."
Yes, when I asked if Jesus taught theosis John 17 was on my mind. But that doesn't seem to be theosis as Lee taught it. In fact it doesn't seem to be speaking of theosis at all.

One might also look to Romans 8 verses 9-11. Seems like lots of blending of God & man there (dare I say "mingling"?).
If that's true then we're theosisized (sic) when we receive the Spirit.

And as Paul says in Colossians 1:27 about this great mystery" "Christ in you, the hope of glory."
Christ in us is our deification.

I still think the bottom-line is that this subject is (sorta like my dad would say - like trying to corner jello) a mystery.
But Lee gained his power by revealing mysteries. In fact, that's what the recovery was all about : Lee revealing mysteries, that have been hidden from all, until the great Lee came along. To bad we can't kiss his feet. Oh, are they still doing that ... in their spirits now?

Yes, it probably is too far to say we become God ...
Ya think!

, but God is the ultimate giver! "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is." My my - what is this!!??
Now that sounds like divine induced theosis. That happens "when he is revealed."

I think what He is doing is and will be an entirely new creation and critter (as a brother I know likes to say) - God's masterpiece!
"The hope of glory."

[Drake]

The word become is not the issue it is the definition of "God in life and nature". If "God in life and nature" means the "economic Trinity" then it is orthodox, if it means the "essential Trinity" then it is heretical.

To alleviate any concerns, I will define the term "God in life and nature" as Lee used it - in Western theology, it means the "economic Trinity". In Eastern theology, it means "God's energies". If you can prove that Lee used it in any other way than this, then you have a point that it is heresy. But if not, you cannot say it is heresy.

Going with the Western terminology, "economic Trinity" refers to what God does. And the "“ontological Trinity” or "essential Trinity" refers to what God is.

Lee taught that we become God economically, but not ontologically.

For these reasons it falls under orthodoxy.

I did not exactly "fail to show that it is scriptural", I gave the scriptures that theologians like Blackwell say led to the doctrine of theosis, which confirms it is scriptural. A doctrine is not scriptural just because UntoHim or Evangelical thinks it is. One person's personal interpretation of Scripture does not define orthodoxy. It is confirmed by the earliest Christian sources from multiple accounts. It is like how the doctrine of the Trinity is Scriptural - there is no verse which defines it clearly for us as well as the Nicene Creed, but it is seen when comparing Scripture as a whole, and it raises all sorts of questions if people like Athanasius who defended the Trinity got it wrong about theosis.


UntoHim,

The above starts to address the main point of your earlier excellent question:

“Please tell us about the life and nature (of God) that we “become” that is different than the life and nature (of God) that we do “not become”.

Stated in accepted theological terms it serves as a solid basis for what I wanted to share sooner. That is, a believer in the Lord Jesus becomes God in life and nature, a bonified (John 1:12) son of God, one of “many brothers” in the genre of the Firstborn Son of God (Romans 8:29) ..... but never the Only-begotten Son of God (John 1:14).

The understanding of what we become pivots entirely on that distinction.

The scripture states clearly that we are genuine sons not just legally but in life.... yet according to and after the pattern of the Firstborn. So, what is the primary distinction between the Only-Begotten Son and Firstborn Son? It is primarily “creation”. The Firstborn is also a creature (Philippians 2:6-8) whereas the Only-Begotten is the Creator through whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16).

As pertains to us, the believers, we will always be creatures yet we also are in the same genre of possessing both divinity and humanity as our Firstborn Brother. In that sense, we are or becoming God in life and nature as He is.

I’ll pause here and ask for your acknowledgement of agreement or if you don’t agree I’ll ask an explanation of your differing understanding from what I have stated. Please provide scripture to substantiate your point of view.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

As pertains to us, the believers, we will always be creatures yet we also are in the same genre of possessing both divinity and humanity as our Firstborn Brother. In that sense, we are or becoming God in life and nature as He is.

I’ll pause here and ask for your acknowledgement of agreement or if you don’t agree I’ll ask an explanation of your differing understanding from what I have stated. Please provide scripture to substantiate your point of view.

The Bible does not say we are "becoming God." Lee said it, not based on scripture, but on the writings of certain "church fathers." [ N.B. Jesus said call no man "father." Matt. 23.9 ]

The writings of these so-called "church fathers" are in no way binding on us as the church today. If we accept Athanasius as authoritative, then we must also acknowledge Ignatius who gave us the bishopric hierarchy which gave authentication to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. These early post-apostolic writers and ministers were definitely used by the Lord in their day, but perhaps their only lasting legacy was the canonization of the New Testament. Only the Bible is definitive for the church today.

In the garden of Eden, the Serpent tempted first man Adam and Eve with the subtle deceit of "opening their eyes, and you shall be as God." (Gen 3.5) Today the oldest sect, the Eastern Orthodox, and a relatively new sect, the Mormon Latter Day Saints, both use this teaching to their advantage. But it's hard to say if any of their adherents are actually regenerated, blood-washed children of God. It's no wonder that Apostle Paul, fighting the earthly wisdom of extraneous errors, reduced his message to "Christ and Him crucified." (I Cor 2.2)

Why would any Christian denomination doggedly adhere to these extra-biblical teachings, espoused only by the fringes of Christendom, and rejected by nearly all Bible-based, fundamentally sound, professing, evangelical Christians?

[awareness]

Hey y'all, I have a dog in this fight, so to speak ... skin in this game.

Okay, we don't have a explicit doctrine of theosis in scripture. In fact, I talked to my local New Testament Greek expert, and we found that, the word theosis doesn't show up in the NT anywhere.

No matter. We have hints of it, and few verses that imply it. So it took 350 years and along comes :

Anthanasius ; speaking from back in the days when Christianity officially became a government sponsored corporation, in 4th century. 350 years for theosis to be discovered? That alone should cause us pause.

Then we have the EOC, that claims succession back thru the apostles to Jesus himself. They claim theosis too, but can't trace it back to Jesus.

Then we have johnny-come-lately, Witness Lee, with his 'becoming God in life and nature.' (He can't claim to recovery that, except for his extra-Biblical terminology).

Then in scripture we have sanctification. But more often than not that happens when we receive the Holy Spirit. So all born-againers are theosisized.

I'm happy about it. It's my skin in the game. That means, sitting here in my living room, on my computer, I'm theosisized, at the moment. And if theosis is real it's been going on from the beginning, and Witness Lee's small movement, has no corner on it.

In fact, there's lots of evidence in the Bible that God wanted/wants to make humanity God. And he wants it for all of humanity. If our population growth is an indicator, that, we're more good than bad, He seems to be coming along very well. (The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.) (https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010)

First, God made us in His image. That's got to be some kind of divinization.

Then we ate the forbidden fruit and became 'as one of us." That was a quantum leap into divinization. That was when the devil came upon the scene, so claimed. Apparently, God had failed once, pre Adam, in heaven, when a archangel broke ranks. And now he, that archangel, that took the name 'devil or Satan' has been muddling up God's plan to make humanity God ever since. He's doing a grand job at it too, it more than appears ... in the news.

Let's not mention an example of physical divinization. That of the sons of God in Gen. 6. Look what that produced. Zowie !!!. Scary !!!.

But after becoming 'as one of us,' we had something that "us" didn't have : a physical body. And we all know that that is sinful just by the odors it emits if we don't, or can't, keep it clean. Plus, the physical body is clearly not God.

That is what needs to be divinized. So, as I've been told since little, God took on flesh, to die for humanity, to settle the score with God because of our sinful body, once and for all.

. . . And to also become 'a life giving spirit,' that we can receive. That's theosis that's been enjoyed by countless, down thru the ages.

Just one more thing, and if there's no new breakthru on this matter, I'll lay low.

Down thru the years I've see preachers that were harping on some sin, only for it to be discovered that they were committing that sin. Jimmy Swaggart is just one example among many. As a result, I've concluded that, the louder the moralist, the deeper the closet.

That makes me wonder if that's why Lee harped on theosis; if he had doubts about his metanoia, and was therefore harping on theosis, thinking it would save him. Who knows? But clearly Lee wasn't deified. Sorry.

But I get it. It's fun kicking around theosis in this sandbox. It's a fun notion. I certainly enjoy it. Like Lee, it's my only hope.

Still ... What I see from this discussion so far is that we've concentrated on what the Bible says, or doesn't say, at the expense of reality.

No one, that we know of, or recorded in history, since Jesus, has ever become deified. Sorry.

[Sons to Glory!]

Okay, we don't have a explicit doctrine of theosis in scripture. In fact, I talked to my local New Testament Greek expert, and we found that, the word theosis doesn't show up in the NT anywhere.

No matter. We have hints of it, and few verses that imply it. So it took 350 years and along comes : Anthanasius ; speaking from back in the days when Christianity officially became a government sponsored corporation, in 4th century. 350 years for theosis to be discovered? That alone should cause us pause.Yes, I'm with ya.


First, God made us in His image. That's got to be some kind of divinization. Right! And many sons brought into His glory and all . . .


But I get it. It's fun kicking around theosis in this sandbox. It's a fun notion. I certainly enjoy it. Yeah. Sandbox playing sums it up I think! One day when we see all clearly, I believe we'll be laughing way hard about all this kind of conversation. We don't have a clue of what we don't know (but that doesn't stop us from trying to tell others).

[Evangelical]

No matter. We have hints of it, and few verses that imply it. So it took 350 years and along comes :

Anthanasius ; speaking from back in the days when Christianity officially became a government sponsored corporation, in 4th century. 350 years for theosis to be discovered? That alone should cause us pause.


That is wrong. It is found in Irenaeus and other early church fathers, before Athanasius's time.

This is from:

Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1—Early and Eastern: From Jesus to John of Damascus (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1932)

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.

And a while ago I already gave this quote and reference:


Moreover, patristic interpretations adapted antecedent traditions that read Ps. 82:1, 6—7 as summarizing salvation history from Adam's fall to the eschatological restoration of the immortality and glory he lost

See this journal article (THE EARLIEST PATRISTIC INTERPRETATIONS OF PSALM 82, JEWISH ANTECEDENTS, AND THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN DEIFICATION
Carl Mosser
The Journal of Theological Studies
NEW SERIES, Vol. 56, No. 1 (APRIL 2005), pp. 30-74):

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23969235

The author is professor of Christian theology at Gateway Seminary (Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary).

[Evangelical]

The Bible does not say we are "becoming God." Lee said it, not based on scripture, but on the writings of certain "church fathers." [ N.B. Jesus said call no man "father." Matt. 23.9 ]

The writings of these so-called "church fathers" are in no way binding on us as the church today. If we accept Athanasius as authoritative, then we must also acknowledge Ignatius who gave us the bishopric hierarchy which gave authentication to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. These early post-apostolic writers and ministers were definitely used by the Lord in their day, but perhaps their only lasting legacy was the canonization of the New Testament. Only the Bible is definitive for the church today.

In the garden of Eden, the Serpent tempted first man Adam and Eve with the subtle deceit of "opening their eyes, and you shall be as God." (Gen 3.5) Today the oldest sect, the Eastern Orthodox, and a relatively new sect, the Mormon Latter Day Saints, both use this teaching to their advantage. But it's hard to say if any of their adherents are actually regenerated, blood-washed children of God. It's no wonder that Apostle Paul, fighting the earthly wisdom of extraneous errors, reduced his message to "Christ and Him crucified." (I Cor 2.2)

Why would any Christian denomination doggedly adhere to these extra-biblical teachings, espoused only by the fringes of Christendom, and rejected by nearly all Bible-based, fundamentally sound, professing, evangelical Christians?

To be strictly correct, Gen 3:5 says to be like God in knowing good and evil, and man has already become God in knowing good and evil. Gen 3:5 was a truthful statement, that if Adam and Eve ate the fruit they would become like God.This is proved by Gen 3:22:

Gen 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

If Gen 3:5 was a general prohibition on man becoming like God, then no Christian should even talk about being conformed to the image of Christ and immortality.

Gen 3:4-5, and Gen 3:22 shows two conditions for being like God - knowledge and immortality. Mankind has already acquired the first. Jesus secures us the second. Since God has not denied immortality from any of his children, it is appropriate to say that God desires His children to become like Himself.

It does raise issues for "Bible-based, fundamentally sound, professing, evangelical Christians" when the vast majority of early church fathers who gave us the Canon and the Trinity doctrines, all believed in theosis to one degree or another. They believed it as much as they were comfortable to talk about Christians as gods, a step that an average evangelical would never take. And yet these same "Bible-based, fundamentally sound, professing, evangelical Christians" would rather hold onto and defend their European pseudo-pagan/Christian Christmas and Easter traditions than consider the early church beliefs.

[Trapped]

The word become is not the issue it is the definition of "God in life and nature". If "God in life and nature" means the "economic Trinity" then it is orthodox, if it means the "essential Trinity" then it is heretical.
The word "become" is "the definition"? Really? You're diggin bro, you're still diggin. Keep at it and you'll be in Shanghai by the weekend. These terms "economic" and "essential" are related to God himself in his Trinity - they are not related to, nor do they apply to, what we, as God's creation have "become" (or what we have not become, as it were)

Oh Drake? You said you were interested in having some meaningful dialogue. Mr E has given us with some dialogue...but he has fallen short on the meaningful part. Maybe you can step in and save the day for Witness Lee and his teaching that we "become God in life and nature".
-

I am pretty sure that he did not mean the word "become" is the definition. I believe he meant "The word become is not the issue, the definition of 'God in life and nature' is the issue."

As an aside, I have not yet seen a post in blue text be anyone's other than UntoHim's, but the forum moniker listed is Evangelicals. I can't imagine Evangelical would refer to himself as "Mr E" either. Is there some glitch?

[Kevin]

Roman Catholics will always appeal to church Fathers. "Hey, the first church Fathers were the disciples of the Apostles so everything they wrote must be true. Same goes with theosis. :cool:

[awareness]

That is wrong. It is found in Irenaeus and other early church fathers, before Athanasius's time.

This is from:

Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1—Early and Eastern: From Jesus to John of Damascus (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1932)

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.

And a while ago I already gave this quote and reference:


Moreover, patristic interpretations adapted antecedent traditions that read Ps. 82:1, 6—7 as summarizing salvation history from Adam's fall to the eschatological restoration of the immortality and glory he lost

See this journal article (THE EARLIEST PATRISTIC INTERPRETATIONS OF PSALM 82, JEWISH ANTECEDENTS, AND THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN DEIFICATION
Carl Mosser
The Journal of Theological Studies
NEW SERIES, Vol. 56, No. 1 (APRIL 2005), pp. 30-74):

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23969235

The author is professor of Christian theology at Gateway Seminary (Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary).
First off. I don't trust Baptists. I grew up with 'em. I've seen behind the curtain.

But other than that ... great stuff ... thanks ... worth looking deeper into. So far, as far as I have found, those early church fathers weren't all that.

The bottom line question is, can we really become God in life and nature? Secondly, how do we go about it? Thirdly, what is it like. And finally, who do we have as an example? I like Saint Francis of Assisi. He loved the critters, as much as God loves the sparrows.

Francis preached the Christian doctrine that the world was created good and beautiful by God but suffers a need for redemption because of human sin. He believed that all creatures should praise God (a common theme in the Psalms) and the people have a duty to protect and enjoy nature as both the stewards of God's creation and as creatures ourselves.[37] Many of the stories that surround the life of Saint Francis say that he had a great love for animals and the environment.

Seems godly to me. But what do I know? I'm not deified yet. I must be a work in progress. From the looks of it I'm gonna need a few lifetimes. Good thing the New Testament hints at reincarnation as much as it does theosis.

[Evangelical]

Roman Catholics will always appeal to church Fathers. "Hey, the first church Fathers were the disciples of the Apostles so everything they wrote must be true. Same goes with theosis. :cool:

It's more or less a myth that Catholics look to the early church fathers and Luther and Calvin only relied upon the "bible alone". The Reformers all looked to the early church fathers too. Calvinism for example is basically Augustinianism.

There is a good discussion on this article:
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/

Augustine was the most important patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation there was an “Augustinian Renaissance”. Here I reflect on the impact Augustine had on Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, in the areas of grace and salvation, the church and the sacraments, and predestination and freewill.

On the principle of sola gratia, Calvin, Zwingli and Luther agreed whole-heartedly with Augustine, and it has been stated that the mainline Protestant Reformation can be considered an ‘acute Augustinianization of Christianity.’[68]

[68] George, T. Theology of the Reformers, (Nashville, Broadman Press, 1988), p. 74.

[Kevin]

Protestants look to early church fathers too. The Reformers Luther and Calvin looked to and were influenced by the writings of the church fathers. Protestant theologians today also look to the early church fathers.

It's more or less a myth that Catholics look to the early church fathers and Luther and Calvin only relied upon the "bible alone".

Such I expect from Evangelical. I knew you would say that.

[Evangelical]

Such I expect from Evangelical. I knew you would say that.

Protestants are no better than Catholics in regards to standing on the shoulders of the early church fathers.

What is the difference really between Calvin drawing from Augustine for their doctrine of salvation and Lee drawing from Athanasius for the doctrine of becoming God?

[Evangelical]

John Piper's book - The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin shows the link between Augustine, Luther and Calvin.

https://www.desiringgod.org/books/the-legacy-of-sovereign-joy

Piper is a 5 point Calvinist. He did not obtain his doctrine by reading the bible on his own. No, he's got his nose in the ancient books too, reading the early church fathers.

John Piper, (he loves Athanasius as I've shown before, even praises him), loves Augustine as well. He's second to the apostles themselves, somewhere between Paul and Luther, even calls him SAINT Athanasius (like a Catholic would?):.

The influence of Augustine in the Western World is simply staggering. Adolf Harnack said that he was the greatest man the church has possessed between Paul the Apostle and Luther the Reformer.

The publishers of Christian History magazine simply say, "After Jesus and Paul, Augustine of Hippo is the most influential figure in the history of Christianity."

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-swan-is-not-silent
Calvinists are following the teaching of the early church father Augustine. CH Spurgeon and others wrote as much - the link between Calvin and Augustine is undeniable. Yet Saint Augustine was no Calvinist, he was the ultimate Roman Catholic, a much revered Saint in the Roman Catholic church to this day. It seems that whatever Awareness wrote about Anthanasius living 350 years after Christ, should apply to Augustine as well, who lived in A.D. 354-430.

I guess the real problem with Calvinists holding onto Augustine and rejecting deification is that Augustine most likely believed in deification as well.

[Kevin]

John Piper's book - The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin shows the link between Augustine, Luther and Calvin.
Guess who my profile picture is. So, Mr. Evangelical this is supposed to be a forum on the LC, not my fellow Calvinists. If you wish to discuss with this and not divert to the reformed faith in order to defend theosis, go to reformed forums. I know your statics here as well as the DCP apologists. You're quite clever. And there's no theosis in Reformed orthodoxy. It's more of an Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine.

[Drake]

Guess who my profile picture is. So, Mr. Evangelical this is supposed to be a forum on the LC, not my fellow Calvinists. If you wish to discuss with this and not divert to the reformed faith in order to defend theosis, go to reformed forums. I know your statics here as well as the DCP apologists. You're quite clever. And there's no theosis in Reformed orthodoxy. It's more of an Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine.

Kevin,

I don’t know who your profile picture is of.... but whoever it is has a body way too small to carry that super-sized cranial mass! :yep:

The local church has a context and it has peers. One cannot talk intelligently about this or any subject for that matter without understanding those aspects. Since church history, church fathers, and church groups are shared then of course they are fair discourse to prove a point. In this case, the divinization of the believer, is the debate so what they thought about that is relevant.

Drake

[awareness]

It does raise issues for "Bible-based, fundamentally sound, professing, evangelical Christians" when the vast majority of early church fathers who gave us the Canon and the Trinity doctrines, all believed in theosis to one degree or another.
Wow! They did all that? The Canon, the Trinity, and Theosis?

Makes me question all three. Devotee's have been known to get it wrong more times than not ... even the disciples, that all of Christendom consider their touchstone.

Hey, theosis promoters? Has it ever dawned on you that you could be wrong?

[awareness]

It's more or less a myth that Catholics look to the early church fathers and Luther and Calvin only relied upon the "bible alone". The Reformers all looked to the early church fathers too. Calvinism for example is basically Augustinianism.

There is a good discussion on this article:
https://theglobalchurchproject.com/augustines-influence-calvin-luther-zwingli/

Augustine was the most important patristic source for the Reformation. In the centuries prior to the Reformation there was an “Augustinian Renaissance”. Here I reflect on the impact Augustine had on Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, in the areas of grace and salvation, the church and the sacraments, and predestination and freewill.

On the principle of sola gratia, Calvin, Zwingli and Luther agreed whole-heartedly with Augustine, and it has been stated that the mainline Protestant Reformation can be considered an ‘acute Augustinianization of Christianity.’[68]

[68] George, T. Theology of the Reformers, (Nashville, Broadman Press, 1988), p. 74.
August-ine? Now there's many would call a god. We've found an example of theosis. Finally!

[Kevin]

Kevin, I don’t know who your profile picture is of.... but whoever it is has a body way too small to carry that super-sized cranial mass! :yep:
Well then that's my boi John Piper. ;)

[Drake]

Wow! They did all that? The Canon, the Trinity, and Theosis?
Makes me question all three. Hey, theosis promoters? Has it ever dawned on you that you could be wrong?

I am as convinced about the divinization of the believer as I am about the Trinity, the Bible as the completed Holy Writ, God’s redemption through the blood of Christ, Jesus being God, the indwelling Spirit, and all the other marvelous wonders of God’s complete salvation...

So,... no... the divinization of the Body of Christ, the deification of the Bride of Christ is as much an article of faith to me as everything else in God’s provision to His Church. They are all colorful parts of the one mosaic of God’s purpose with man.

Drake

[Ohio]

I am as convinced about the divinization of the believer as I am about the Trinity..
All of these basic tenets of the faith have strong biblical basis ... Yet deification or "becoming God" has only Lee, Athanasius, the EOC, and the Mormons ... But that's apparently enough proof for you?

[awareness]

I am as convinced about the divinization of the believer as I am about the Trinity..
Good luck with that ... and thanks for your reply.

Harold

[Acolyte4236]

All of these basic tenets of the faith have strong biblical basis ... Yet deification or "becoming God" has only Lee, Athanasius, the EOC, and the Mormons ... But that's apparently enough proof for you?


Well the LC, and the LDS views are not identical. And neither of them are identical with the Orthodox view, not by a long shot.

For the Orthodox the view is that humans participate in God's power or his energies, also known as his activities. If energies sounds weird to you, first its a biblical term. Second, Christians used it in the debates about the Trinity and Christology in the fourth thru sixth centuries.

That the LC and Lee globbed on to CHristian terminology and completely messed it up is not a reason for lumping them all together or dismissing them out of hand.

[Evangelical]

Guess who my profile picture is. So, Mr. Evangelical this is supposed to be a forum on the LC, not my fellow Calvinists. If you wish to discuss with this and not divert to the reformed faith in order to defend theosis, go to reformed forums. I know your statics here as well as the DCP apologists. You're quite clever. And there's no theosis in Reformed orthodoxy. It's more of an Eastern Orthodox Church doctrine.

Need I remind you that you first diverted to Roman Catholicism to insinuate against the LC, but also that we have been considering Piper's views on this thread as well.

Even though Piper quotes them and values certain early church fathers, Piper makes his views clear in an article called "Don’t Equate Historically Early with Theologically Accurate".

It says:

Neither the experiences nor the teachers of the first 300 years of the church are as reliable as the finished New Testament.

The New Testament rescued the early church from instability and error.

We are in a better position today to know Jesus Christ than anyone who lived from AD 100 to 300. They had only parts of the New Testament rather than the collected whole.

Many of these statements go against commonsense, not to mention the second law of thermodynamics. It was the early church who gave us the New Testament. We don't need the whole completed NT to know Jesus, and the stories about Jesus themselves, the very content of the NT, were records of experiences and teaching. And how come later Catholicism and its degradation was not prevented by the existence of the completed New Testament?

So Piper must think he is more orthodox than anyone living in the first 300 years of Christianity, yet I think if we ignore what they have to say, then we are in more danger. Theosis is not a view held by one or two of the early church fathers (and some of them had really crazy ideas), but by a whole lot of significant people involved in defense of orthodoxy. If it was so heretical they would not have touched it.

[Drake]

Good luck with that ... and thanks for your reply.
For sure luck is not involved.. rather, I was predestinated unto sonship.

How about you, Brother Harold?

Drake

[awareness]

For sure luck is not involved.. rather, I was predestinated unto sonship.

How about you, Brother Harold?

Drake
If you've read the book of life you'd know already.;)

[Sons to Glory!]

From Daily Light this morning, 1st John 3:2-3:Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him (". . . Christ in you, the hope of glory." - Col 1:27) purifies himself, just as He is pure.added parenthesis mine