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".