Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
[COLOR="Navy"]Mr. E., why did you just use a small "g" instead of a Capitol "G" like your One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age uses? Are you backing down a little bit on this? You better hope someone from Anaheim does't see this....if it gets back to your elders you're going to be in some hot water!-
|
I should have used capital G yes to write -
As we can see, most people do not have a good reason why Lee's views on salvation and becoming God are heretical.
I am not aware of any rule that we must use capital G.
The psalms uses little g and so did Witness Lee sometimes in his books.
Since there is only one God, and "God" is not God's name, if we say god or God it does not matter. Jews have rules about these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
[COLOR="Navy"]
So you're going to keep insisting that "theosis" or "divination" equals "glorification"? Your Acting God never made this correlation, so I don't understand why you insist on this obvious blunder. No, Blackwell didn't say this and neither did Piper. (and neither did Matt Slick in the reference you gave us) You are apparently not used to a careful reading of the views of educated, genuine and professional theologians (and who could blame a follower of Witness Lee for this).
|
Piper did indeed equate them in his article:
What becomes clear when all is taken into account is that Athanasius is pressing on a reality in the Scriptures that we today usually call “glorification”
Glorification (in Western terminology), or deification (according to the East)
Reading this in plain English, it says:
The process of transformation is a reality - it's called glorification in the West, and deification/theosis in the East.
Piper is equating them and putting the differences down to a different in terminology:
What becomes clear when all is taken into account is that Athanasius is pressing on a reality in the Scriptures that we today usually call “glorification” but is using the terminology of 2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:29, “Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” He is pressing the destiny and the glory of being a brother of the second person of the Trinity, and “sharing in his nature.”47
But I know there is a difference, and here is where I disagree with Piper (and agree with Lee) - I wrote a post about it earlier, and wrote:
What evangelicals and the EOC both share in common is that there will be a process of transformation. The disagreement lies in what is the purpose of that transformation (to be like God or to be free from a sin nature?), how it comes about (a life-long process of cooperation with God?, or a one-off future event?).
Piper's article does two things:
a) shows the idea of deification is a biblical reality, and not such a heresy as some say it is. So it is incorrect to say "it isn't in the bible", if theologians like Piper endorse it.
b) Praises Augustine. Praise for Augustine and the doctrine of becoming God amounts to endorsement of Orthodox beliefs. Piper seems to endorse the beliefs and then equate them to glorification.
I disagree with Piper that it is the same as glorification, I posted about this before. What is remarkable to me is how positive Piper is towards Augustine and the general idea of transformation to become like God.
Piper writes:
My present understanding would go like this: the ultimate end of creation is neither being nor seeing, but delighting and displaying.
So the goal of salvation is to delight and display God. Where have I heard that before? That's right, Witness Lee.
"delight and display" = "enjoy and express".
The goal of salvation is to enjoy and express God. Or "
We were created by God as a tripartite man with a spirit, a soul, and a body for us to contain, enjoy, and express God"
So Piper and Witness Lee and the EOC basically agree. They all see something more to salvation than merely getting to heaven when we die or escaping hell. They affirm what Athanasius taught, and do not see him as a man who was orthodox most of the time (on the Trinity, etc) but heretical at other times (with becoming God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
[COLOR="Navy"]
Ok, let me try this one again. This is an open book test my brother! Please feel free to quote Witness Lee in your answer.
Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)
|
When I get more time I will elaborate on this, and I don't think you will be disappointed
Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Sorry, but asking questions for clarifications of one's beliefs is not an ad hominem. (Neither is asking for somebody to clarify their beliefs regarding the undisputed leader of a movement...but I'll let you slide on that one for now).
-
|
Yes but you attached that to my credibility or not, which is ad hominem, or literally "arguing to the human".