[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

To be honest, I can't say I really know what to think regarding this subject. It's been so ingrained in me that the biggest problem is that I don't know how LC views compare to that of mainstream Christianity. What I can say is that I have never been completely comfortable with how the LC expresses their views on deification. I don't feel that they provide enough scriptural support. The phrase "God's economy is to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is well known in the LC, but where is that teaching explicitly found in the Bible? If they could simply provide more scriptural support for their teaching, I would be much less reluctant about accepting it.

Awhile back, Paul Onica and Kerry Robichaux produced a translation of a thesis by French scholar Jules Gross titled The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers. When I initially heard about this, my reaction was that they must be a little desperate to support Lee's teachings. If a teaching is wholly Biblical, you shouldn't have to go to the works of an obscure scholar to support it. The problem is that Lee, being held as an infallible minister, chose to support deification, so now the BB's have to scramble to find ways to also support that position.

It seems that Lee liked to make statements for the shock value. When you combine that with his already questionable teachings, it is a publicity nightmare. Being pressured to shout things like "I am a god-man" in a meeting (something I've had to do before) isn't exactly what most people want to do when they attend a church. I don't care how well founded the LC teaching on deification is, they don't have the ability to teach this subject in a "normal" way, and in my mind that is a big part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Though I was never comfortable with the teachings on deification, I never saw the need to raise any issue of it, I just accepted it for what it was. I never once had any personal experience where the doctrine of deification meant anything to me. It was all a matter of memorizing the phrases and paying the necessary lip service.

I think you also raise a good point, that is even if Lee's teachings of deification had some value, it's not like you can just go around and tell people about it. Telling someone you're a "god-man" is probably the easiest way to scare someone away.

I think these are great posts. I remember when Lee sprung the "I'm a God-man" trap on the saints -- most didn't know what to think. Maybe 10 percent shouted "I'm a God-Man!!" as loudly and frequently as they could. Someone of course quickly composed a song, to the melody that already had carried a half-dozen songs already, and we sang it over and over again.

But really, what to make of it? It's arguably based on scripture, else Lee wouldn't have proffered it. But it's also arguably based on the presumptions of fallen man, overlaid upon scripture, else it wouldn't have the novelty and shock value it did. I mean, yes you can find the Church Fathers talking about this. But you can find the church Fathers speculating about reincarnation, universal salvation, and a host of less-than-widely received ideas along with divinization.

One may of course pick the Fathers that agree with one's idea, wave this in the air, and ignore the Fathers' less-than-orthodox positions where they are not helpful. Actually, I do this as well. But I don't make this the basis of "truth"; it's simply my thought-constructions and logical trains, buttressed by as much scripture and "authority" as I can find. Subject to change as we go along, and hopefully part of a conversation.

The real problem with Lee's ideas is the system they arose in. As soon as he said something, however tenuously it related to scripture and orthodoxy, we were expected to shout it repeatedly, compose songs to it, pray over it, speak it to our dog and cat and neighbors, etc. No matter if it bothered that "still small voice" within. It went forth in an environment which didn't promote careful cross-examination; one essentially had no way to openly discern what was healthy teaching and what was dross.

I don't think Lee would have done very well in an atmosphere of give-and-take. Nor, probably, would his ideas, including this one. "Becoming God", but not in the God-head? God, but not really God? Like, you know, "God" God? Not totally God but divinely God?

To me, there's a grey area at the edge of "God". I've poked around there, noting where "Spirit" seems fully divine (the HS) and where it tells the apostle, "NO -- don't worship me! I am your fellow servant!" The spirit speaks to the churches... but wait a minute, just two verses ago it was a ministering spirit (angel) speaking, and no change of pronoun.?.? "I Jesus have sent my angel"... who said this, Jesus or the angel? Or Jesus through the angel? Etc etc. I'm not going to drone on here, just note that I did find room for interesting speculation. And I also noted that the early Jewish antagonists didn't react to Christians presenting Three Powers in heaven, but Two. The Ancient of Days, as it were, and the Son of Man. Little note of the "Third of the God-head", who only seems to have been officially sanctioned a couple centuries later.

See, for example, "Two powers in heaven" by Alan Segal.

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Powers-Hea.../dp/039104172X

Now, why have I dragged the conversation so far away? To make one point. That I see a fuzzy area, arguably, at the fringe of the "God-head", to include the Seven Spirits/Seven Angels who stand before God/Seven Messengers to the seven churches,Seven Eyes of God, etc, etc. But I see a less-fuzzy area to include sinful man as "God", whether "in the God-head" or "not as an object of worship" or whatever disclaimers one tacks on. And given the warnings for sinful man not to presume any pride of place, with repeated references to the Arch-angel who lifted himself up, and angels who didn't keep their allotted place, but were cast down to darkness, with Israelites who made it from Egypt but were presumptuous and fell in the desert, there seems to be incentive to tread cautiously here.

But was there room for caution and discernment in the trainings and conferences? Hardly. Like Awoken said, it was like North Korea: if you didn't clap loudly enough you could be executed.