Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
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.
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.