Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
Evangelical, I have seen posts from both ZNP and testallthings providing quotes indicating that WL did indeed teach deification. That has already been settled.
Your constant reference to whether or not WL taught anyone to worship man is a bit of a red herring. God is synonymous with worship. We worship God. God and worship are inseparable. For WL to say that we can become God, implies he believed in the acceptability of man-worship. There is no way around that. I understood that he spoke against it, but such a disclaimer is negated by the fact that he taught deification. If WL didn’t want to deal with the worship issue, then he shouldn’t have taught deification. It’s that simple.
|
Not really they provided a straw man argument based upon the meaning of the word deification, without taking into consideration that Lee said many times we are not to be worshipped.
Athanasius was the one who said man can become God, and he was largely responsible for defending the faith from heresies (see the Athanasian creed). So there's nothing wrong with saying that. Lee's understanding of deification then is no more than the orthodox view of theosis.
It is also my observation that no one in the local churches worships Lee.