God's Eternal Purpose

[zeek]

HERn's thread questioning which of Witness Lee's teachings to retain or throw out started me thinking about Lee's conception of God's eternal purpose. http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...PURPOSE-1.HTML I must admit I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, some of the church fathers and famous Christian mystics expounded ideas of divination which may be compatible with Lee's. On the other hand, there seemed to be something rather crass about a spiritual paradigm centered on selfishly devouring God's substance through pray-reading the bible and calling on the Lord. So I am interested to hear where others stand on the matter. If you reject Lee's proposition, have you found another conception of God's plan or purpose that is better supported, more comprehensive or more to your liking? I must admit not having thought about it for awhile and not having actively engaged in a search for another theory. I haven't even taken a serious look at Rick Warren's purpose driven life to see how it stacks up. I suppose I am skeptical about any claim to know the ultimate answers after Lee's theory fell apart for me. How important is it to have a theory about this issue? Is there any way to discern whether any theory we have about it is more than our own projection on the facts of our experience?

[OBW]

I know this is far from really addressing the questions that you raised. But for me, the first problem I have in dealing with Lee's idea of "God's eternal purpose" is that it is predicated on the idea that he has properly decided which are the primary/core things of why God created things and made them, or allowed them, to turn out the way they have, and what he intends to do about it.

And the problem that I keep coming back to in Lee's version of the "eternal purpose" is that while there may be a statement here or there that could be construed as arriving at some part of Lee's version, the whole record, including the very history of the creation, fall, the selection of Abraham and his offspring, the working with that offspring over the years, etc., does not seem to support the conclusion that it is all about "taking in God" or calling on the Lord, or other similar "spiritual" activities.

In the beginning, God created man and gave him the image of God, and gave him dominion over the earth. Then He sat back and watched it, coming to talk with Adam periodically. Not constantly. Not at every potential problem. Note that the serpent had time to tempt Eve, get her (and Adam) to eat of the tree (whatever that actually consisted of), realize their problem, and take time to devise coverings for themselves so they wouldn't be naked the next time God came around.

We don't learn in the account that God told Adam to call on Him all day long, or "turn to his spirit" or any other such thing. Rather, man lived life and interacted with God at times of uncertain interval and duration.

Same goes for Abraham. He had some significant interactions. But if they managed to go many years without the promised son being born, you would have expected God's presence on a more constant basis giving Abe the strength to wait. But instead he resorted to his own devices.

Etc. Etc.

Then came the Exodus, and the law. Come to the Temple on set occasions. Not even every month, and clearly not every week. Sacrifice on occasion. In the meantime, live a righteous life. Be square with each other, and even with strangers among you. Love God and love each other. Treat everyone the way you would want to be treated yourself.

And so on. Obedience is better than sacrifice.

And then in the NT, it is suddenly is turned on its head. It is now all about doing religious things and not about righteousness. It is about sacrifice and not about obedience. I'm not talking about sacrifice relative to salvation, but the kind of "sacrifice of praise" that we bring. Not bad stuff. But it is never a replacement for hungering and thirsting for righteousness. It does not respond to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. If you love God, you will obey. And no amount of religious action and words (no matter how flowery) can make up for disobedience.

This is not about salvation, but about what the saved do with their salvation. Or after it. If I despise "works" of righteousness, kindness, love, etc., then I am despising the very thing that is the second part of the "great commandment." The commandment that makes all the others irrelevant because fulfilling it will naturally fulfill all other commandments.

And it is not just Lee that misses this at times. Some of the rest of us think that it is all about evangelizing. Learn how to spread the gospel. That is your primary command. But if we are unrighteous, what kind of gospel are we spreading? A gospel of shame? a gospel of hypocrisy?

[zeek]

Yes. The moral/ethical dimension of Christianity was missing from Lee's teaching. There was character training for the kiddies, but the adult swim was about something else. And what was that something? Eating and drinking the Word according to Lee 24/7.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I must admit I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, some of the church fathers and famous Christian mystics expounded ideas of divination which may be compatible with Lee's. On the other hand, there seemed to be something rather crass about a spiritual paradigm centered on selfishly devouring God's substance though pray-reading the bible and calling on the Lord. So I am interested to hear where others stand on the matter. If you reject Lee's proposition, have you found another conception of God's plan or purpose that is better supported, more comprehensive or more to your liking?

Local Church song from the 70s:

We have found the way to live by Christ -
Pray His Word and call His name!

"Pray His Word and call His name."

If only that is what we actually practiced. As it turned out, we spend more time praying the words of a man than we did "His Word". If we were actually reading, meditating on and yes, even praying the Word, as much as we were praying and reading the words of Witness Lee, this forum would probably not even exist. (and boy, wouldn't some fellows over there on La Palma Ave. in Anaheim be liking that!)

As to "calling on His name"...well I think this a very good thing...but one must take care with this practice lest he end up being on the wrong side of the infamous rebuke: On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?

[OBW]

I will be honest here to say that much of the evangelical world has missed what I believe is the more important part of what Lee would have labeled "God's eternal purpose" if he had been an actual theologian and read the Bible that was given rather than creating the bible he wanted.

God's eternal purpose is not preaching the gospel in the "go into all the world" sense. That, like a lot of other things, was a piece of the NT "dispensation." But if that was all it was about, then it makes the warm up (the OT) into an exercise in 2-a-day football workouts in anticipation of a math contest. In other words, the whole purpose seems to have changed.

But if we start with the idea of God's stated purpose — the one that was "very good" — then bearing God's image in this world is the key. While the modern atheist will still not see how that God could wipe out an entire race of people (which, of course, never actually happened unless we are talking about the flood), the nature of the nation of Israel was to be a righteous people who served only the one God. Then in the NT, God's people were once again the righteous people who were changed from the unrighteous people they had been.

As I read it, God sent a few to spread the gospel to many who would remain in place as the evidence that God changes lives. That would live in a manner that made people living in darkness see some light and take note. It was not about the people in darkness seeing others having uplifting meetings or making declarations about God that did not square with the lives they were living (a common problem with the charge to get saved and rush out to preach the gospel). It was lives that could not be hidden, shining light into the darkness. That would make people ask.

That is probably one reason that Paul really did not tell much in those letters about how to preach the gospel, but rather about how to live. Their problem wasn't that the gospel they were preaching was so bad, but the lives behind it were no better than the pagans.

Lee pulled and Adam Savage and substituted his reality for the one actually written.

Now that does not mean that changing the words we dwell on from Lee's to the actual Bible would not help. But even at that, the key is not assuming that taking a whole lot in will just make you change. It takes practice After salvation, which is by grace, we are given commandments on how to live and we should do it.

I'm preaching to me as much as anyone else.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will be honest here to say that much of the evangelical world has missed what I believe is the more important part of what Lee would have labeled "God's eternal purpose" if he had been an actual theologian and read the Bible that was given rather than creating the bible he wanted.

I'm reading G.H, Pember's Earth's Earliest Ages again.

It's a hoot.

Pember is following the Millerites' Great Disappointment. But didn't learn anything from it.

No. Pember made the same mistake as Miller (and James Ussher too).

And Lee followed in the same mistake they made.

That mistake is turning the Bible into jigsaw puzzle pieces, and arranging them into pictures and ways that, aren't really there; like God buried a secret code in the Bible, that only special ones can find, see, and read.

Miller produced The Great Disappointment. And Pember's predictions, based upon the rise of Theosophy, Buddhism, and Spiritualism, that he considered were coming from descending fallen angels (Nephilim - "as in the days of Noah"), has also disappointed.

And now Lee, and his movement, has become disappointing.

Albert Einstein said: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

And yet this mistake, of thinking the Bible gives special messages from God, if the verses are reassembled, happens over and over again, with disappointment after disappointment.

When are we gonna see this method, of reassembling the Bible (into God's Eternal Purpose/Economy), for what it is: Insanity? and stop falling for it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm reading G.H, Pember's Earth's Earliest Ages again.

It's a hoot.

Pember is following the Millerites' Great Disappointment. But didn't learn anything from it.

No. Pember made the same mistake as Miller (and James Ussher too).

And Lee followed in the same mistake they made.

That mistake is turning the Bible into jigsaw puzzle pieces, and arranging them into pictures and ways that, aren't really there; like God buried a secret code in the Bible, that only special ones can find, see, and read.

Miller produced The Great Disappointment. And Pember's predictions, based upon the rise of Theosophy, Buddhism, and Spiritualism, that he considered were coming from descending fallen angels (Nephilim - "as in the days of Noah"), has also disappointed.

And now Lee, and his movement, has become disappointing.

Albert Einstein said: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

And yet this mistake, of thinking the Bible gives special messages from God, if the verses are reassembled, happens over and over again, with disappointment after disappointment.

When are we gonna see this method, of reassembling the Bible (into God's Eternal Purpose/Economy), for what it is: Insanity? and stop falling for it?

This is like critical theory of the grand narrative or meta-narrative. The term refers to a comprehensive explanation, a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society legitimation through the anticipated completion of an as yet unrealized master idea. It seems if we take your criticism to heart we must abandon the theological enterprise altogether. I favor a more moderate view which recognizes that our system, no matter how brilliant it seems, be recognized as speculative, judged on it's relative merits and not treated as the ultimate truth. The human mind has an inescapable propensity toward understanding that drives us to theorize about what we cannot understand fully. Let us simply recognize it for what it is. People want to see the big picture. We speculate about how it looks from the divine point of view. The Bible is our telescope. But we are not omniscient. So our interpretation God's POV is always incomplete and skewed this way or that. Time to try again. Though we fall short, the insight we gain through trying justifies the effort, at least for me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is like critical theory of the grand narrative or meta-narrative. The term refers to a comprehensive explanation, a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society legitimation through the anticipated completion of an as yet unrealized master idea. It seems if we take your criticism to heart we must abandon the theological enterprise altogether. I favor a more moderate view which recognizes that our system, no matter how brilliant it seems, be recognized as speculative, judged on it's relative merits and not treated as the ultimate truth. The human mind has an inescapable propensity toward understanding that drives us to theorize about what we cannot understand fully. Let us simply recognize it for what it is. People want to see the big picture. We speculate about how it looks from the divine point of view. The Bible is our telescope. But we are not omniscient. So our interpretation God's POV is always incomplete and skewed this way or that. Time to try again. Though we fall short, the insight we gain through trying justifies the effort, at least for me.

Then what you are saying is: William Miller, Pember, and Lee, (my examples) piecemealed the Bible into grand speculations, were/are wrong (the Great Disappointment and such), yet trying by such piecemealing justifies the effort (for you).

I think you might be right if we factor in the entertain value of such speculations.

And yes, we Christians need entertainment. And their speculations, I admit, tho wrong, are still entertaining.

Playing in the sandbox of our imagination is fun ... I have to admit that. So I concede your point.

[aron]

This may be incoherent, but here goes. I notice that in the kingdom of heaven, the whole atmosphere is full of light, and love. Everything is clear; God’s purpose and motivating love pervade all. There is absolutely no confusion allowed, no darkness, no lonely self. On earth, by contrast, darkness prevails, along with confusion, pain, and shame and the lonely self (alienation). This, to me, is what it means to be absent God’s will. And this is probably (I am guessing here) the outcome of 3 falls: the fall of Satan, intimated in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28; the fall of the human race in Genesis 3, and the fall of the angels in Genesis 6.

(And it may be noteworthy that the fall of the angels is subsequent to, and tied to, that of humanity [they lusted after fallen women, after all]. According to John’s “Revelation”, approximately 1/3 of the kingdom was destroyed [12:4]. I connect the idea of “fall” with the idea of being removed from God’s will [“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven”]).

Only one Human Being made it out of heaven, with His mind intact, and His will unsullied. He remembered the kingdom of the Father (John 3:13). He continued in the Father’s will. And He came here, leaving the kingdom of heaven and descending to darkness, because of the Father’s great love for us. The rest of us fell irretrievably, into darkness and confusion and sin. But Jesus, in coming, remembered His Father in heaven, and never let go of the golden thread of faith. Even when it meant His death, Jesus believed, and obeyed. Jesus went into darkness and death, knowing, believing, hoping, trusting.

And He did it because of the Father’s love. This love was the motive force. The Father’s will was to express His love for us in His Son Jesus Christ. Now we have the way home. The Father wants us to come home.

To me, Lee’s version of “God’s eternal purpose” is short on two counts. First, it focused on the self – “eat the tree – drink the river”. Second, it then moved to the universal – “build the Body – consummate the New Jerusalem”. But it missed the message of Jesus to love your neighbor. With Nee & Lee, notice how quickly the neighbor, and the "local ground", got subsumed in the rush to the "Jerusalem principle", i.e. consolidation. The "fox tail" of fallen humanity revealed itself, and Babylon just kept building.

I personally believe that God’s eternal purpose is found in the Father's love for the sinner next to you. Just as God sent His Son, to seek and save the lost, now God has sent you to follow the Son. And OBW's caveat is wise, here: unless we live as Jesus did, connected continually by faith to the kingdom of our Father in heaven, and maintain continual obedience to the will of God, then our gospel, and our works (even motivated by 'good intentions') will be marred.

I find it hard to maintain unbroken communication with the Spirit. Our flesh, our fallen mind, our neighbors all intrude. But we have the Word. In that sense, imbibing of God's word is essential. But ironically, this ex-Liite now sees "the way of eating" and "the way of abiding" in just those types of passages and practices rejected by Lee. For example, go to Psalm 1 and read about the blessed man, who meditates on God's word day and night. Lee said nobody could do that. I say Jesus did it, and wants us to follow.

Let me put it another way, for consideration: A kingdom divided cannot stand. There were 3 falls, and the Father's kingdom was divided. Then the Messiah Jesus came, to make the kingdom whole. Only the King can unite the kingdom. No church, no work, no "ministry of the age", no doctrinal "ground"; only Jesus can make this thing work. Again, only Jesus came to earth, and didn't miss the Father in heaven. Only Jesus made it through. And He did it for us.

Yes, there is a church; I know. But the church takes the lead to look away unto Jesus. The church doesn't look at itself as the solution to the problem. The church is not the solution, but takes the lead to show that Jesus is the solution. Jesus is the King. The Father's kingdom has been restored, and we now are invited in.

Originally Posted by OBW

As I read it, God sent a few to spread the gospel to many who would remain in place as the evidence that God changes lives. That would live in a manner that made people living in darkness see some light and take note. It was not about the people in darkness seeing others having uplifting meetings or making declarations about God that did not square with the lives they were living (a common problem with the charge to get saved and rush out to preach the gospel). It was lives that could not be hidden, shining light into the darkness. That would make people ask.

That is probably one reason that Paul really did not tell much in those letters about how to preach the gospel, but rather about how to live. Their problem wasn't that the gospel they were preaching was so bad, but the lives behind it were no better than the pagans.

After salvation, which is by grace, we are given commandments on how to live and we should do it.

I'm preaching to me as much as anyone else.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

To me, Lee’s version of “God’s eternal purpose” is short on two counts. First, it focused on the self – “eat the tree – drink the river”. Second, it then moved to the universal – “build the Body – consummate the New Jerusalem”. But it missed the message of Jesus to love your neighbor. With Nee & Lee, notice how quickly the neighbor, and the "local ground", got subsumed in the rush to the "Jerusalem principle", i.e. consolidation. The "fox tail" of fallen humanity revealed itself, and Babylon just kept building.

I personally believe that God’s eternal purpose is found in the Father's love for the sinner next to you. Just as God sent His Son, to seek and save the lost, now God has sent you to follow the Son. And OBW's caveat is wise, here: unless we live as Jesus did, connected continually by faith to the kingdom of our Father in heaven, and maintain continual obedience to the will of God, then our gospel, and our works (even motivated by 'good intentions') will be marred.

I find it hard to maintain unbroken communication with the Spirit. Our flesh, our fallen mind, our neighbors all intrude. But we have the Word. In that sense, imbibing of God's word is essential. But ironically, this ex-Liite now sees "the way of eating" and "the way of abiding" in just those types of passages and practices rejected by Lee. For example, go to Psalm 1 and read about the blessed man, who meditates on God's word day and night. Lee said nobody could do that. I say Jesus did it, and wants us to follow.

Let me put it another way, for consideration: A kingdom divided cannot stand. There were 3 falls, and the Father's kingdom was divided. Then the Messiah Jesus came, to make the kingdom whole. Only the King can unite the kingdom. No church, no work, no "ministry of the age", no doctrinal "ground"; only Jesus can make this thing work. Again, only Jesus came to earth, and didn't miss the Father in heaven. Only Jesus made it through. And He did it for us.

Yes, there is a church; I know. But the church takes the lead to look away unto Jesus. The church doesn't look at itself as the solution to the problem. The church is not the solution, but takes the lead to show that Jesus is the solution. Jesus is the King. The Father's kingdom has been restored, and we now are invited in.

If God's plan was to create us to be kind to each other, we certainly missed the mark as a species. I am personally shocked by the brutality and violence not only of terrorists and mass murderers but practices that are built into the world system like armies, the military technology of death, police brutality, and factory farms. Most of us have little power as individuals to change the world. If the Christians of the world had a unified vision of GEP that involved a program of compassion to change the world, much could be accomplished. But, alas, we are divided like you said.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Local Church song from the 70s:

We have found the way to live by Christ -
Pray His Word and call His name!

"Pray His Word and call His name."

If only that is what we actually practiced. As it turned out, we spend more time praying the words of a man than we did "His Word". If we were actually reading, meditating on and yes, even praying the Word, as much as we were praying and reading the words of Witness Lee, this forum would probably not even exist. (and boy, wouldn't some fellows over there on La Palma Ave. in Anaheim be liking that!)

As to "calling on His name"...well I think this a very good thing...but one must take care with this practice lest he end up being on the wrong side of the infamous rebuke: On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?

So you think the problem is that we weren't praying the Word enough? Where I was we prayed the Word plenty. I think a bigger problem was at least one of emphasis when it wasn't one of outright error. OBW has already identified the huge gap in Lee's moral/ethical teaching. Lee went so far as denigrating Christianity for it's moral ethical teaching. He claimed that he had a DEEP teaching. And we bought it. All we had to do was eat and drink Jesus and spontaneously, automatically Jesus would get worked into us and reconstitute our being. We would express God automatically because we were reconstituted with the substance of God. Right choices, acts of compassion, obedience to the actual principles promulgated by the Bible didn't matter. It was that you were somehow magically getting this God stuff into you by Lee's prescribed practices. You didn't need to think about or understand it. In fact understanding it was just being in your mind--a hindrance to the proper mode of consumption.

The church was a hive. Lee's ministry was the honey. Our job as worker bees was to take care of the honey. The other bees didn't matter except insofar as they helped care for the honey. All Lee's gems of insight were the flowers. The rest of the world didn't matter, except as a source for more worker bees. If you agree with Lee's vision of God's Eternal Purpose this metaphor should please you. Feel free to use it in your next testimony.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

All we had to do was eat and drink Jesus and spontaneously, automatically Jesus would get worked into us and reconstitute our being.

I believe in the LRC, they don't eat and drink Jesus but Lee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The church was a hive. Lee's ministry was the honey. Our job as worker bees was to take care of the honey. The other bees didn't matter except insofar as they helped care for the honey. All Lee's gems of insight were the flowers. The rest of the world didn't matter, except as a source for more worker bees. If you agree with Lee's vision of God's Eternal Purpose this metaphor should please you. Feel free to use it in your next testimony.

All that eating and drinking, pray-reading, and calling on the name, and the honey ended up being Lee's ministry.

So the process of becoming an expression of God was a consummate failure.

If it worked, and transformation really happened, was real from God, why wasn't Lee transformed?

If Lee was an example of transformation then I don't want anything to do with that kind of transformation. Cuz it's no different from the non-believing, non-transformed world ; just littered with Bible verses, to make it sound good.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

If Lee was an example of transformation then I don't want anything to do with that kind of transformation. Cuz it's no different from the non-believing, non-transformed world ; just littered with Bible verses, to make it sound good.

Well said, brother Awareness!

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

HERn's thread questioning which of Witness Lee's teachings to retain or throw out started me thinking about Lee's conception of God's eternal purpose. http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...PURPOSE-1.HTML I must admit I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, some of the church fathers and famous Christian mystics expounded ideas of divination which may be compatible with Lee's. On the other hand, there seemed to be something rather crass about a spiritual paradigm centered on selfishly devouring God's substance through pray-reading the bible and calling on the Lord. So I am interested to hear where others stand on the matter. If you reject Lee's proposition, have you found another conception of God's plan or purpose that is better supported, more comprehensive or more to your liking? I must admit not having thought about it for awhile and not having actively engaged in a search for another theory. I haven't even taken a serious look at Rick Warren's purpose driven life to see how it stacks up. I suppose I am skeptical about any claim to know the ultimate answers after Lee's theory fell apart for me. How important is it to have a theory about this issue? Is there any way to discern whether any theory we have about it is more than our own projection on the facts of our experience?

Once on this forum, we discussed the Theosis in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I have not changed my mind about it since that time. For us EO Christians, the purpose of man's life is union/communion with God. And deification (theosis) is both a transformative process as well as the goal of that process. In other words, the goal is the attainment of likeness to or union with God. The path to this communion: faith, prayer, partaking in the divine nature through the Eucharist (the Holy Communion) and walking in the Commandments with the help of God’s grace.

From Wikipedia:

Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

On the earth, we just start the process of deification. And we will reach our goal of the attainment of likeness to or union with God only after the Lord's second coming when He transforms our bodies.

More about theosis:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx
http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/in...113&Itemid=248
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf a book

[awareness]

Okay let's define the topic. What was/is God's Eternal Purpose according to Witness Lee?

As I recall it, and there's much stuffed into it -- as I remember Lee saying he could prove it from Genesis to Revelation -- was, or is maybe, THE BUILDING!!!

There may be many branches to Lee's teachings on God's Eternal Purpose.

But what about that purpose being The Building?

Is that truth, fact, in existence right now?

Was Lee right?

[HERn]

Hymn 971 comes to mind, but this may be early Lee?

[UntoHim]

Hymn 971

SUBJECT: ULTIMATE MANIFESTATION-GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
METER: 6.5.6.5.D.
AUTHOR: Witness Lee
COMPOSER: M. Koch, from Geistliche Lieder


1 God’s eternal purpose
Is to join with man,
Causing man, His vessel,
To be born again,
His own life imparting,
Filling to the brim;
Man may thus express Him,
And be one with Him.

2 God in His own image
Hath created man,
That he may be able
To fulfill His plan;
That he may receive Him
As the tree of life
To become His fulness
As to man the wife.

3 In His life’s rich flowing
Man will be transformed
Into precious substance
And to Him conformed.
Thus will man be builded
As His counterpart,
Thus to be His dwelling,
Satisfy His heart.

4 ’Tis the holy city,
New Jerusalem;
With His saints God mingles,
Makes His home with them.
He becomes their content,
His expression they;
They shall share His glory,
One with Him for aye.

5 He’s the very center,
Ruling on the throne;
By His life the power,
Saints are kept in one.
By His light of glory,
They are kept in light,
Harmony enjoying
In divine delight.

6 He’s their living water,
And their food supply;
All their thirst and hunger
He doth satisfy.
He’s for them the temple,
In Himself they live,
In His constant presence
Worship ever give.

I wonder if John Ingalls' name has been purged from the LSM hymnal? (Like they did with purging his name from the Recovery Version of the New Testament) If so, this would be a another grievous (not to mention legally liable) attempt to write out a major contributor in the Local Church of Witness Lee Movement. Of course John Ingalls is too much of a godly man to go after the powers that be over there in Anaheim (like they would go after him in a heartbeat in a similar situation) Witness Lee's English back in the early 60's was not strong enough to write (or translate to English) these hundreds of hymns. There is little doubt that Ingalls was the major contributor to the writing of these hymns, and as a matter of fact, this was not much of a secret for all the years, until of course, he became persona non grata in the late 1980s.

[zeek]

Exhibit A

Hymn 971

SUBJECT: ULTIMATE MANIFESTATION-GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
METER: 6.5.6.5.D.
AUTHOR: Witness Lee
COMPOSER: M. Koch, from Geistliche Lieder

1 God’s eternal purpose
Is to join with man,
Causing man, His vessel,
To be born again,
His own life imparting,
Filling to the brim;
Man may thus express Him,
And be one with Him.
2 God in His own image
Hath created man,
That he may be able
To fulfill His plan;
That he may receive Him
As the tree of life
To become His fulness
As to man the wife.
3 In His life’s rich flowing
Man will be transformed
Into precious substance
And to Him conformed.
Thus will man be builded
As His counterpart,
Thus to be His dwelling,
Satisfy His heart.
4 ’Tis the holy city,
New Jerusalem;
With His saints God mingles,
Makes His home with them.
He becomes their content,
His expression they;
They shall share His glory,
One with Him for aye.
5 He’s the very center,
Ruling on the throne;
By His life the power,
Saints are kept in one.
By His light of glory,
They are kept in light,
Harmony enjoying
In divine delight.
6 He’s their living water,
And their food supply;
All their thirst and hunger
He doth satisfy.
He’s for them the temple,
In Himself they live,
In His constant presence
Worship ever give.

[zeek]

UnotHim--Great minds think alike. I didn't see your post which you entered 7 minutes before I did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay let's define the topic. What was/is God's Eternal Purpose according to Witness Lee?

Bill Freeman wrote a great song for the Supplement, "God eternal has a purpose ..."

We sang that song all the time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bill Freeman wrote a great song for the Supplement, "God eternal has a purpose ..."

We sang that song all the time.

Do we have the lyrics? I googled it with no luck.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Do we have the lyrics? I googled it with no luck.

Hymn book Supplement #1325

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bill Freeman wrote a great song for the Supplement, "God eternal has a purpose ..."

We sang that song all the time.

I believe that is hymn #1325 in the little black book.

Verse 6:

As the product, the fulfillment,
Will the church in glory stand,
Consummation of the purpose
In eternal ages planned.
God will have His corporate vessel,
All His glory to contain;
Lord, we’re wholly for Thy purpose
All Thy goal in us attain.

"The purpose in eternal ages planned" according to the hymn writer Bill Freeman, here channeling Lee's teachings, is to have the "corporate vessel", i.e. the church, glorious. To me, that is putting the cart before the horse. The narrative is and should be, rather, about Jesus Christ. Who said it's about the "glorious church"? There are plenty of churches out there, and still the world is dark and cold. What made Lee think his recovered church would be so glorious? What made Lee think he could buck the trend? What made Lee think his message was unique?

We have now seen "reformed churches", "recovered churches", "restoration churches", and "remnant churches" all purporting to bring us back to God's eternal plan. All of them, from what I can see, cutting off the saints from one another. All of them building fences to divide and separate us from each another. All of them causing us to forget God's love. Some special teaching, or organizational "ground", or myth of divinely appointed apostolic ascendancy, comes into the narrative and distracts us and captures our attention and allegiance, and subsequently our hearts grow cold toward one another.

I see the restoration of the Kingdom, in the person of the coming King, who is Jesus the Messiah and God's Christ, and who is Lord of all, as indeed a process of restoration, reconciliation, and recovery. But this process is entirely through God's Son Jesus Christ, and His sent Spirit. It is not through you or me or Watchman Nee, or some teaching or group or theology or practice... Paul rightly said that he was given a "ministry of reconciliation", but Paul said that reconciliation is to God by faith in Jesus Christ, and also to one another in the unity of faith.

So, where is obedience to be found? How to integrate oneself back to God's heavenly kingdom?

1. Turn from the world system which is fully opposed to God. The world system is arranged only to distract and defile. James wrote to "keep yourself unspotted from the world" (1:27) and he was right.

2. After being reconciled to God, we must demonstrate proof by being reconciled with one another. This will not occur if we build special churches, which hold themselves aloof from "degraded Christianity". Instead, the Good News of Jesus Christ gives a ministry of reconciliation. It is not of alienation and isolation and condemnation. Mercy triumphs over judgment. If you are looking for only "good building material" for your special remnant, you yourself will be judged.

3. Go deeper into the "meta-narrative", using zeek's term. Go further into the story. You can never exhaust God. Never. Just remember that if the story makes you feel special and unique, far above all the supposedly stupid mooing cows around you, you'd better re-check your narrative. Again, this is a gospel message of inclusion, and of reconciliation, not of judgment and superiority. Remember that Satan tried to be unique.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I see the restoration of the Kingdom, in the person of the coming King, who is Jesus the Messiah and God's Christ, and who is Lord of all, as indeed a process of restoration, reconciliation, and recovery. But this process is entirely through God's Son Jesus Christ, and His sent Spirit. It is not through you or me or Watchman Nee, or some teaching or group or theology or practice... Paul rightly said that he was given a "ministry of reconciliation", but Paul said that reconciliation is to God by faith in Jesus Christ, and also to one another in the unity of faith...

Put it another way: ever since Adam and Eve ate the wrong fruit, humankind was cut off from God. And look how quickly humankind began to subsequently divide from each another: Adam's children began killing themselves over which offerings were pleasant to God.

Lee's group once lured me into thinking that I could be part of a special remnant which fulfilled God's master plan. But when I read Lee's thrashing it out with the Bible Answer Man over the substance of the Trinity, my conscience began to stir; something was wrong with this narrative. Why are we fighting with one another? When I heard the FTTA trainer tell us "don't waste your time" with the poor, the widows and orphans, I was further troubled. Why are we ignoring one another? When I read the Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, and saw Lee characterize the supposed "rebels" in terms that would make a sailor blush, I was bothered. Why are we judging one another?

So I left. I stopped being "special" and began to act like just another bozo on the bus. Just another sinner redeemed to God by faith in Jesus Christ.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Once on this forum, we discussed the Theosis in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I have not changed my mind about it since that time. For us EO Christians, the purpose of man's life is union/communion with God. And deification (theosis) is both a transformative process as well as the goal of that process. In other words, the goal is the attainment of likeness to or union with God. The path to this communion: faith, prayer, partaking in the divine nature through the Eucharist (the Holy Communion) and walking in the Commandments with the help of God’s grace.

From Wikipedia:

Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

On the earth, we just start the process of deification. And we will reach our goal of the attainment of likeness to or union with God only after the Lord's second coming when He transforms our bodies.

More about theosis:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx
http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/in...113&Itemid=248
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf a book

How does theosis differ from Lee's GED? Or does it?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

How does theosis differ from Lee's GED? Or does it?

I don't know much about Lee's GED but I see that the Eastern Orthodox path to deification is different. I can be mistaken but from what I see, in the LRC you just need to be in the "body" and keep building the "body", reading Lee's books and recruiting new members, and then one day God will transform you because you stayed with the "crowd" till the end.

In the EOC, we don't need to build the "body" to be saved and transformed. It's mainly an inner work of repenting, turning away from sin, and committing ourselves to Christ + God's grace. Christian life is not about building an organization but about becoming a new creation in Christ. In the Orthodox Church, salvation is understood primarily as theosis, the infinite process of becoming more and more like God. Salvation is “faith working through love”, the restoration of the wholeness of God’s image in us, of the possibility of our union with God. It is the restoration of our original essence. Holy Tradition teaches that we will be saved when we become like Christ… Because of our faith in Him and our desire to become God-like, we are not so much saved all at once as slowly changed into the creatures we were created to be. Personal salvation is the restoration of our original communion with God. Through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, man comes to living communion with God the Father Himself. There is no other meaning and purpose to the Church and to life itself.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm

Another synonym for theosis is "acquisition of the Holy Spirit." Our task is to acquire the Holy Spirit, so that our bodies become true temples of God, bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit as listed in the fifth chapter of Galatians.

The Holy Spirit dwells in us at baptism. But then we may fall and sin. Nevertheless, God is not a tyrant and does not dishonor our free will. He does not take our life over after baptism and thus we still have choices in faith that can lead to life of darkness, meaning the Holy Spirit can withdraw from us if we act contrary to the will of God for the Spirit comes and goes as it pleases. Therefore, to receive the benefits of the Holy Spirit, that is the Gifts of the Holy Spirit we must act in a proper way in cooperation with God (Synergia).

The acquisition of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are described by St. Innocent of Alaska in "The Way to the Kingdom of Heaven":

"In summary, it is impossible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven or even come close to it without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should implore the Holy Spirit with all earnestness to come dwell in us and help us, just as He helped the Holy Apostles. In order for the Holy Spirit to be kind toward us, to descend and reside within us, it is important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away.

Jesus Christ said that the Holy Spirit blows where it wills and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes (Jn. 3:8). This means that a person cannot force the Holy Spirit to come to him or predict the time when He may decide to do so. You can only feel His touch when this happens. Indeed, the book of Acts states that when the Holy Apostles and other Christians received the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was always unexpectedly. He seldom descends immediately on those beseeching Him but does so when it suits Him, as God, to do so. No one should attempt to foretell when or what gifts, if any, he will receive or to consider himself worthy of His descent! The Grace of the Holy Spirit is a gift of His endless mercy. And gifts by definition are given when it suits the giver, and only those deemed suitable by the giver.

It is the Holy Spirit Himself Who established within the Church the means of distributing His blessings to the faithful: the Holy Mysteries and other liturgical services.

Anyone who considers asking the Holy Spirit for beneficial gifts must know that these gifts are meant only for those who possess true faith. Indeed, the Lord first of all enlightened the Apostles with the true doctrine and then bestowed upon them the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Apostles did not bestow beneficial gifts upon newly baptized Christians immediately, but only after a certain period of testing and affirmation in the true faith. That is why the Lord called the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth, and His Church, the beatified community of the faithful, is called in Scripture the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Therefore, when a Christian, humbly and obediently, has accepted Christ's faith in all its purity, without any corrections or misinterpretations, then the following are the requirements to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit:
Purity of heart and chastity
Humility
Listening to the voice of God
Prayer
Self-denial
Reading the Holy Scriptures
Sacraments of the Church, especially Holy Communion."

Another Orthodox saint, St Seraphim of Sarov, also said about the acquisition of the Holy Spirit:

"Prayer, fasting, vigil and all other Christian activities, however good they may be in themselves, do not constitute the aim of our Christian life, although they serve as the indispensable means of reaching this end. The true aim of our Christian life consists in the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. As for fasts, and vigils, and prayer, and almsgiving, and every good deed done for Christ's sake, they are only means of acquiring the Holy Spirit of God."

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov speaks about the very same thing in his book, The Arena, written in 1867. Perhaps he was even inspired by St. Seraphim. But in any case, the teaching is this: the spiritual life doesn’t consist in keeping commandments and going to church and saying prayers and reading the Bible and fasting from certain foods. Those things are essential. They are absolutely important. Without them you just perish. But they are not the end in themselves. They are a means to an end. You do those things to open yourself to the grace of God. You do those things, so to speak, to attain to and to acquire the Holy Spirit. Perhaps even the word attaining might be better than acquiring. Acquiring looks as though it’s all in our power to get it. But to attain to the Spirit of God, to open oneself to it, to receive the gift, that is what all the ascetical practices of the Church are about.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts...y_spirit/print

In other words, man must come to be divine by sharing the being and life and action of God Himself. All of the attributes of divinity—as one saint put it—must become ours; eternal life, truth, goodness, holiness, purity, joy… all perfections summed up in the greatest which is Love. For God is Love! This is the meaning of life, and it is certainly possible for men to attain it. At least, once more, according to the Eastern Orthodox Faith.

PS St. Seraphim of Sarov: on the acquisition of the Holy Spirit: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/47866.htm

[InChristAlone]

In the Orthodox Church, salvation is understood primarily as theosis, the infinite process of becoming more and more like God. Theosis may be translated as deification or divinization, and its meaning is that the Christian may become more and more soaked with the divine life, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature. As St. Athanasius the Great (4th century) said, “God became man so that man might become divine.” By participation in the Incarnation, man becomes like Christ. This reality goes far beyond the simple question of going to Heaven after death.

Salvation is a process which encompasses not only the whole earthly life of the Christian, but also the eternal life of the age to come. It is often described in terms of three stages—purification (katharsis), illumination (theoria) and divinization (theosis). Salvation is thus not only becoming sinless (purification), but it is also a progress in being filled with the divine light (illumination). Additionally, it is becoming so filled with God in union with him that the Christian shines forth with the likeness of God, in some cases even literally becoming a bearer of the Uncreated Light, a physically visible light from God that is his presence, such as at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-6; Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:28-36) or when Moses spoke with God on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 34:29-35). Though the terminology of three stages is sometimes used, there is much overlap between them, and the whole process itself is often termed theosis.

It is only in and through Christ that man can be saved (John 14:6). Salvation cannot be earned, being a free gift from God. Its acquisition, however, requires man’s cooperation with God, because God will not violate the free will of man. A life of repentance and participation in the sacraments is the means by which man cooperates with God, which not only forgives sins through Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross but also makes him more like Christ. This cooperation is termed synergeia (synergy), making us co-workers with God (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6:1).

In theosis, man becomes filled with the divine life. He takes on God’s attributes, but he does not become merged with the Holy Trinity. There is union without fusion. Man can become a “god” by grace, not in a polytheistic sense (because there is only one God), but rather in terms of becoming a son or daughter of the Most High by means of adoption (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34). Thus, a classic patristic image of theosis is a sword held in a flame—the sword gradually takes on the properties of the flame (light and heat), but remains a sword. All things are to be gathered together in Christ (Eph. 1:10, 2:6).

http://saintpaulemmaus.org/what-is-orthodoxy/salvation/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

In the Orthodox Church, salvation is understood primarily as theosis, the infinite process of becoming more and more like God. Theosis may be translated as deification or divinization, and its meaning is that the Christian may become more and more soaked with the divine life, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature. As St. Athanasius the Great (4th century) said, “God became man so that man might become divine.” By participation in the Incarnation, man becomes like Christ. This reality goes far beyond the simple question of going to Heaven after death.

Salvation is a process which encompasses not only the whole earthly life of the Christian, but also the eternal life of the age to come. It is often described in terms of three stages—purification (katharsis), illumination (theoria) and divinization (theosis). Salvation is thus not only becoming sinless (purification), but it is also a progress in being filled with the divine light (illumination). Additionally, it is becoming so filled with God in union with him that the Christian shines forth with the likeness of God, in some cases even literally becoming a bearer of the Uncreated Light, a physically visible light from God that is his presence, such as at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-6; Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:28-36) or when Moses spoke with God on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 34:29-35). Though the terminology of three stages is sometimes used, there is much overlap between them, and the whole process itself is often termed theosis.

It is only in and through Christ that man can be saved (John 14:6). Salvation cannot be earned, being a free gift from God. Its acquisition, however, requires man’s cooperation with God, because God will not violate the free will of man. A life of repentance and participation in the sacraments is the means by which man cooperates with God, which not only forgives sins through Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross but also makes him more like Christ. This cooperation is termed synergeia (synergy), making us co-workers with God (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6:1).

In theosis, man becomes filled with the divine life. He takes on God’s attributes, but he does not become merged with the Holy Trinity. There is union without fusion. Man can become a “god” by grace, not in a polytheistic sense (because there is only one God), but rather in terms of becoming a son or daughter of the Most High by means of adoption (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34). Thus, a classic patristic image of theosis is a sword held in a flame—the sword gradually takes on the properties of the flame (light and heat), but remains a sword. All things are to be gathered together in Christ (Eph. 1:10, 2:6).

http://saintpaulemmaus.org/what-is-orthodoxy/salvation/

Theosis as you have described it is very similar if not identical to what Witness lee taught.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I don't know much about Lee's GED but I see that the Eastern Orthodox path to deification is different. I can be mistaken but from what I see, in the LRC you just need to be in the "body" and keep building the "body", reading Lee's books and recruiting new members, and then one day God will transform you because you stayed with the "crowd" till the end.

That's not a fair description. LRC emphasizes eating and drinking Christ which they understand as partaking of the divine nature which results the building up of the body of Christ to express God.

In the EOC, we don't need to build the "body" to be saved and transformed.

According LRC we automatically become part of the Body of Christ when we are saved.

It's mainly an inner work of repenting, turning away from sin, and committing ourselves to Christ + God's grace.

That's the same as LRC.

Christian life is not about building an organization but about becoming a new creation in Christ.

LRC would deny that they are building an organization. The Body of Christ is a living organism synonymous with a new creation in Christ.

In the Orthodox Church, salvation is understood primarily as theosis, the infinite process of becoming more and more like God.

Same as LRC.

Salvation is “faith working through love”, the restoration of the wholeness of God’s image in us, of the possibility of our union with God. It is the restoration of our original essence. Holy Tradition teaches that we will be saved when we become like Christ… Because of our faith in Him and our desire to become God-like, we are not so much saved all at once as slowly changed into the creatures we were created to be. Personal salvation is the restoration of our original communion with God. Through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, man comes to living communion with God the Father Himself. There is no other meaning and purpose to the Church and to life itself.

Being saved or born again is just the first step in a process compatible with all you have said so far according to LRC.

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm

Another synonym for theosis is "acquisition of the Holy Spirit." Our task is to acquire the Holy Spirit, so that our bodies become true temples of God, bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit as listed in the fifth chapter of Galatians.

Same for LRC and many other evangelicals.

The Holy Spirit dwells in us at baptism. But then we may fall and sin. Nevertheless, God is not a tyrant and does not dishonor our free will. He does not take our life over after baptism and thus we still have choices in faith that can lead to life of darkness, meaning the Holy Spirit can withdraw from us if we act contrary to the will of God for the Spirit comes and goes as it pleases. Therefore, to receive the benefits of the Holy Spirit, that is the Gifts of the Holy Spirit we must act in a proper way in cooperation with God (Synergia).

The acquisition of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are described by St. Innocent of Alaska in "The Way to the Kingdom of Heaven":

"In summary, it is impossible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven or even come close to it without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should implore the Holy Spirit with all earnestness to come dwell in us and help us, just as He helped the Holy Apostles. In order for the Holy Spirit to be kind toward us, to descend and reside within us, it is important to know what draws Him to us and what pushes Him away.

Jesus Christ said that the Holy Spirit blows where it wills and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes (Jn. 3:8). This means that a person cannot force the Holy Spirit to come to him or predict the time when He may decide to do so. You can only feel His touch when this happens. Indeed, the book of Acts states that when the Holy Apostles and other Christians received the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was always unexpectedly. He seldom descends immediately on those beseeching Him but does so when it suits Him, as God, to do so. No one should attempt to foretell when or what gifts, if any, he will receive or to consider himself worthy of His descent! The Grace of the Holy Spirit is a gift of His endless mercy. And gifts by definition are given when it suits the giver, and only those deemed suitable by the giver.

It is the Holy Spirit Himself Who established within the Church the means of distributing His blessings to the faithful: the Holy Mysteries and other liturgical services.

I see no incompatibility with LRC there.

Anyone who considers asking the Holy Spirit for beneficial gifts must know that these gifts are meant only for those who possess true faith. Indeed, the Lord first of all enlightened the Apostles with the true doctrine and then bestowed upon them the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Apostles did not bestow beneficial gifts upon newly baptized Christians immediately, but only after a certain period of testing and affirmation in the true faith. That is why the Lord called the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth, and His Church, the beatified community of the faithful, is called in Scripture the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Still no problem.
Therefore, when a Christian, humbly and obediently, has accepted Christ's faith in all its purity, without any corrections or misinterpretations, then the following are the requirements to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit:
Purity of heart and chastity
Humility
Listening to the voice of God
Prayer
Self-denial
Reading the Holy Scriptures
Sacraments of the Church, especially Holy Communion."

OK

Another Orthodox saint, St Seraphim of Sarov, also said about the acquisition of the Holy Spirit:

"Prayer, fasting, vigil and all other Christian activities, however good they may be in themselves, do not constitute the aim of our Christian life, although they serve as the indispensable means of reaching this end. The true aim of our Christian life consists in the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. As for fasts, and vigils, and prayer, and almsgiving, and every good deed done for Christ's sake, they are only means of acquiring the Holy Spirit of God."

No one taught almsgiving in the LRC when I was there.

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov speaks about the very same thing in his book, The Arena, written in 1867. Perhaps he was even inspired by St. Seraphim. But in any case, the teaching is this: the spiritual life doesn’t consist in keeping commandments and going to church and saying prayers and reading the Bible and fasting from certain foods. Those things are essential. They are absolutely important. Without them you just perish. But they are not the end in themselves. They are a means to an end. You do those things to open yourself to the grace of God. You do those things, so to speak, to attain to and to acquire the Holy Spirit. Perhaps even the word attaining might be better than acquiring. Acquiring looks as though it’s all in our power to get it. But to attain to the Spirit of God, to open oneself to it, to receive the gift, that is what all the ascetical practices of the Church are about.

LRC did not teach asceticism.

In other words, man must come to be divine by sharing the being and life and action of God Himself. All of the attributes of divinity—as one saint put it—must become ours; eternal life, truth, goodness, holiness, purity, joy… all perfections summed up in the greatest which is Love. For God is Love! This is the meaning of life, and it is certainly possible for men to attain it. At least, once more, according to the Eastern Orthodox Faith.

I don't see a significant difference between Lee's GEP and what you have presented with the exception of alms-giving and asceticism.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's not a fair description. LRC emphasizes eating and drinking Christ which they understand as partaking of the divine nature which results the building up of the body of Christ to express God.

The LRC doesn't have apostolic succession. It's not a God-established and ordained church but a man-made church, the church of Witness Lee. Therefore, what they eat and drink is just grape juice and bread. Besides, I don't know how the LCR looks at the Holy Communion. For many Protestant churches, it's just a ritual of remembrance or a ritual remembrance. But Jesus didn't say that it must be a mere ritual for the sake of remembrance. "Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:53-54, NIV) In the EOC, the Holy Eucharist (Communion) is called the “sacrament of sacraments”. The Eucharist is the center of the Church’s life. Everything in the Church leads to the Eucharist, and all things flow from it. It is the completion of all of the Church’s sacraments—the source and the goal of all of the Church’s doctrines and institutions.

In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.

One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”

Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).

The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodo...holy-eucharist

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

How does theosis differ from Lee's GED? Or does it?

I can get GEP (God's Eternal Purpose) but for the life of me I don't get GED. Not that I can be certain of. Please excuse, and humor, my ignorance. I know I'll likely end up smacking my forehead in astonishment of my stupidity when you tell me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can get GEP (God's Eternal Purpose) but for the life of me I don't get GED. Not that I can be certain of. Please excuse, and humor, my ignorance. I know I'll likely end up smacking my forehead in astonishment of my stupidity when you tell me.

It was just a typo. I meant GEP.