Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Regardless of the word he used, Witness Lee clearly stated he does not believe in being worshiped. He clearly stated it means to be a son of God. He clearly stated that it is blasphemy to say we should be worshiped. Clearly, he is not teaching "believers become objects of worship". So what's your problem? Given Lee clarified himself, you cannot claim he taught that we should be worshipped.
|
I want to thank you because you have made this so clear.
The doctrine of deification is not contrary to anything that Witness Lee or other Christian teachers teach -- partakers of the divine nature -- we all teach that. Sons of God, again a very standard doctrine. Every time he uses the term he makes it clear he is not teaching about believers becoming an object of worship. In fact, when you look at it the only thing different about the teaching is the word deification.
In 1979 he taught that the term "deification" was equivalent to pantheism.
Regarding the mingling, some have gone so far as to accuse us of teaching pantheism or the deification of man. (Life Study of Exodus, Chapter 106, Section 2).
In 1980 he taught to be careful about the term because it is blasphemy.
Certain early church fathers went so far as to speak of the “deification” of the believers in Christ. We need to be careful in using such a term. To say that the believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. (Life Study of Galatians, Chapter 20, Section 2)
When we teach this, some accuse us of teaching the deification of man. We definitely do not believe or teach that as sons of God we shall become God Himself. Nevertheless, it is a fact that we have the divine life and nature. (Life Study of Galatians, Chapter 44, Section 2)
Now in 1984 he waffles on the use of the term. Does he teach it? Yes, No, or does he sit on the fence?
Because we are children of God born of Him, we possess God’s life and also His nature for our enjoyment. Because I have proclaimed this truth according to the Bible, some have condemned me and falsely accused me of teaching deification. (Conclusion of the New Testament, Chapter 7, Section 2)
"falsely accused me of teaching deification" sounds pretty clear that he denies teaching this.
Some of the church fathers have used the term “deification” to describe the fact that we have been mingled with God and that we are partakers of God's life and nature. When you use the word deified, though, if you mean that you have been made God in His Godhead to be an object of worship, this is heresy. On the other hand, if your denotation is that through regeneration you have received God's life and nature and that now you are a son of God, this is altogether safe and scriptural. (God’s New Testament Economy, Chapter 42, Section 1)
On the other hand, maybe he does teach this.
But in June 1992 he teaches that we need to be "deified".
The early church fathers used the term deification to describe the believers' participation in the divine life and nature of God, but not in the Godhead. We human beings need to be deified, to be made like God in life and in nature, but it is a great heresy to say that we are made like God in His Godhead. We are God not in His Godhead, but in His life, nature, element, essence, and image. (The Christian Life, Chapter 12, Section 5)
And then in June 1993 he refers to "the truth concerning deification"
The church fathers taught the truth concerning deification in the first four centuries. They pointed out clearly that deification means that the believers in Christ have been made God in His life and in His nature but not in His Godhead. He is the unique God for people to worship in His Godhead, but we are God only in life and in nature, not in the Godhead. We all have to be clear that today we are God-men. (The Move of God in Man, Chapter 2, Section 6)
What changed? Absolutely nothing except for the term deification. No new bible verses, no new doctrine, nothing except now he uses a term that he is well aware of can cause problems, it can be understood as blasphemous, it can be understood as heretical, but instead of warning others concerning this term which he used to do, now he is referring to the "truth concerning deification".
This is his Modus Operandi, bring in something really controversial because of the blasphemous implications, explain it away, start a big firestorm to get everyone distracted and not talking about something else. He uses a term that is a form of pantheism, a term that refers to people becoming an object of worship, and then he explains it away with some astounding gymnastics.
"We don't believe that man will become God himself", but on the other hand "God became man so that man may become God". What exactly does that mean? What is the difference between becoming God and becoming God himself? Who knows? He certainly never explains what changed. It doesn't matter as long as no one pays attention to the sins of his house. If it can distract you then it worked. To say that believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. But then he does say that believers need to be deified, and the definition of deified is to become an object of worship.