"God in life and nature but not in the Godhead"

[micah6v8]

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image ofGod".

This is excellent!!!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

Where's the Bible say we lost the image of God in the first place?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

When I think of the various adjectives that would describe God's nature, none of those same adjectives I see as being applicable to human beings. For example, John 4:24 says "God is spirit..." God's nature is spirit. WIth that in mind, if Lee said that that we can become like God in nature, then how come my nature hasn't changed from a human to a spirit? I can't walk through walls or anything like that. The reason I attach that kind of expectation to the LC notion of deification is because they attribute the phrase "god-man" to people in a present sense.

What I find insightful is Paul and Barnabas' reaction in Acts 14 after the Lycaonians had tried to deify them:
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them...

I highlighted what I think is the key, same nature as you. Paul and Barnabas were quick to react against anyone claiming they had any nature other than human. Trying to make a claim otherwise introduces all kinds of problems and certainly has no Biblical basis. That is not even to mention the inevitable pride that goes along with LCers making claims of being god-men.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I think of the various adjectives that would describe God's nature, none of those same adjectives I see as being applicable to human beings. For example, John 4:24 says "God is spirit..." God's nature is spirit. WIth that in mind, if Lee said that that we can become like God in nature, then how come my nature hasn't changed from a human to a spirit? I can't walk through walls or anything like that. The reason I attach that kind of expectation to the LC notion of deification is because they attribute the phrase "god-man" to people in a present sense.

What I find insightful is Paul and Barnabas' reaction in Acts 14 after the Lycaonians had tried to deify them:
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them...

I highlighted what I think is the key, same nature as you. Paul and Barnabas were quick to react against anyone claiming they had any nature other than human. Trying to make a claim otherwise introduces all kinds of problems and certainly has no Biblical basis. That is not even to mention the inevitable pride that goes along with LCers making claims of being god-men.

Peter says that we are "partakers of the divine nature." Lee changed this to "become God in nature."

With this sleight of hand, and the Blended lackeys to enforce it, the recovery was taken off the reservation.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter says that we are "partakers of the divine nature." Lee changed this to "become God in nature."

Excellent observation! There is, in fact, a big difference between "partaker of" and "become". Witness Lee definitely went too far in this regard, and this error also caused him to error in other parts of his theology as well.

[awareness]

Great discussion, I agree ... with all of you.

But:

The proper reaction to "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is to bust out laughing.

No one has accomplished theosis since Christ ... and look what he had to go thru to get there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

We were lost, and God sent His Son. How does it get any heavier than that? God loved you so much that He sent His only begotten Son, who while you were yet in sin, died for you. This is love, man. God loves you, man!

And yes, I'm a Jesus Freak. "And we beheld His glory.." John 1:14. To me, it categorically cannot get any higher than that. Anything higher than beholding Jesus, is for me a snare. The devil always tries to drag us somewhere we don't belong. Jesus lowered Himself; why should we elevate ourselves?

[micah6v8]

"awareness" raised a good point:- Is it correct to say that we have lost the image of God?

If I understand "awareness" correctly, he might cite Genesis 9:6 which suggests that even after Adam and Eve's fall, Scripture deems everyone (whether believer or unbeliever) as still "made in God's image".

My understanding of Romans 8:29 and 2 Corinthians 3:18 are that the Christian growth that takes place after we begin to believe in the Lord is also described as "transformation into the image of Jesus".

Is there an inconsistency? The answer is not straightforward. I suggest having a look at this article written by a Christian writer John Piper which tries to explain how "image of God" is understood.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-image-of-god

On a separate note, if one wanted to describe the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible in one sentence, one could also simply cite John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This verse adds a dimension in that it also introduces the idea of God's love.

LSM's version:-"God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" introduces two ideas:- (i)Incarnation/Living as a human and (ii)Transformation.

My "improved-version of LSM's version":-"God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God" also has two limbs:- (i) Redemption and (ii) Transformation. My intention was to (i) move from the focus from incarnation to redemption which I felt was neglected and (ii) to improve LSM's unsatisfactory expounding of "transformation"

But I think John 3:16, by also introducing the idea of love, offers a more complete picture. It has (i) love, (ii) redemption (which connotes God's righteousness) and (iii) eternal consequences. When one truly grasps God's love and righteousness and the consequences of redemption, he would ultimately be transformed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

But I think John 3:16, by also introducing the idea of love, offers a more complete picture. It has (i) love, (ii) redemption (which connotes God's righteousness) and (iii) eternal consequences. When one truly grasps God's love and righteousness and the consequences of redemption, he would ultimately be transformed.

Redemptive love is also transformative love. And when we see this love in Jesus Christ, and become its vectors (receiving and transmitting), we arguably are at our destiny. To go beyond this to theologicsl constructions, however carefully reasoned, carries risk of distraction snd worse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I suggest having a look at this article written by a Christian writer John Piper which tries to explain how "image of God" is understood.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-image-of-god
I enjoyed that Bible lesson on the image of God in the Bible.

I propose that 'image of God,' and what it is, is quite a mystery. After all, man-made gods (idols) are called by the same word it is said we're made in. And we aren't stone or wooden idols, are we?

Now just what the image of God is I won't pretend to know. But I can point to a possible candidate: the awareness reading these words at this moment. That's mysterious too. I'll grant you that. But we can point to it, or point it out, and it can't be denied ... or it can -- as humans are inclined sooner or later to deny anything and everything ... even if being buffoons -- as awareness is necessary to deny awareness.

Originally Posted by micah

On a separate note, if one wanted to describe the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible in one sentence, one could also simply cite John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This verse adds a dimension in that it also introduces the idea of God's love.

LSM's version:-"God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" introduces two ideas:- (i)Incarnation/Living as a human and (ii)Transformation.

My "improved-version of LSM's version":-"God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God" also has two limbs:- (i) Redemption and (ii) Transformation. My intention was to (i) move from the focus from incarnation to redemption which I felt was neglected and (ii) to improve LSM's unsatisfactory expounding of "transformation"

But I think John 3:16, by also introducing the idea of love, offers a more complete picture. It has (i) love, (ii) redemption (which connotes God's righteousness) and (iii) eternal consequences. When one truly grasps God's love and righteousness and the consequences of redemption, he would ultimately be transformed.

Glad you pointed out "love" bro. "God so loved..." Boy do I need that. I'll take any love I can eek out in this life. I need it. And need it vouchsafed.

The Bible says we're but worms (somewhere, if you must know, let me know and I'll find it. Or google it.).

So I guess we're worms made in the image of God. Anyway, it paints a picture like in these bodies we're wearing something like spacesuits, with God's image within it.

But these spacesuits are flawed, and troublesome, and don't mind the image within. At least that's the way mine is, maybe more than others.

And that's why I so need God's love. And need Paul's comment to the Roman Christians: "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Please ignore the extra-biblical comments in this post. Consider them the ramblings of a worm ... but howbeit a god worm ... perchance ... as it can be seen that way.

Maybe this material should be in lala land, or Alternative Views. Does this "image of God" thing bring our minds into the lala land of our imaginations? If so, isn't that where Witness Lee brought us into, with his God-Men doctrine?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Please ignore the extra-biblical comments in this post. Consider them the ramblings of a worm ... but howbeit a god worm ... perchance ...

A glow worm. Faintly glowing, in sympathetic synchrony with the light from above.

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's why I so need God's love. And need Paul's comment to the Roman Christians: "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

I was thinking of this verse, too, in similar context: what doctrine, theology, teaching, or hermeneutic should separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord? Answer: none. That's a big reason why "becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" doesn't cut it for me. First off, there's no love stated. Too easy to forget. I need love in front of me, 24/7... never assume it's there, or you end up like the Ephesians, full of hifalutin terminology but with no love (Rev. 2:4). Secondly, it's a speculative statement. I don't care if Athanasius first documented this notion. I can give you 46,000 documented notions, some much older than Athanasius.

I like to speculate, and have done it often, even publicly on this forum. But I try to keep "truth" and "speculation" distinct (and it helps to do that, that I'm not merchandizing my speculations).

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

I recently addressed this on another thread, and wanted to continue here, that "God's economy" as presented by Lee paved the way for the "deification" notion to set up shop in our minds. Lee's "God's economy" metric was that God dispenses Himself into humankind in order to make them ultimately into what He is: God.

I mentioned that Jesus taught about dispensing also, but in the context of obedience, and stewardship (Gk: "oikonomia" = "stewardship", e.g. Luke 16:1-13). God gives something, and then expects cooperation, and something in return. This began with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and continued throughout scripture.

And my notion of stewardship is colored by what I call "agency": a rich man will operate through agents, through emissaries. A king, for example, will send ambassadors to speak for him, and make his wishes known. That ambassador represents the king's will, abroad. But no one confuses the ambassador with the king. Lee's theology unfortunately conflated the servant with the Master. The ambassador, or the servant, or the steward, in Lee's eyes became "God in life and nature but not in the Godhead." But it's incorrect to confuse the Sender with the sent, and to conflate the Creator with redeemed creation made new.

God alone is YHWH, "Kurios", the LORD, the Boss. We know that a servant is not above his Master (Matt 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16, 15:20). Nor are we God's equals; God is peerless. Sustaining the idea that we become God requires so many qualifiers that it's essentially useless.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter says that we are "partakers of the divine nature." Lee changed this to "become God in nature."

Yes we partake of the divine life and nature through works of faith, and are promised transfiguration, and glory. But star differs from star in glory, and which one of these stars equals God? None. And we're promised that we'll be "transformed into the same image, from glory to glory", but transformation and transfiguration doesn't equal becoming God. My and cat are both are furry household pets, and both partake of mammalian image, pet life and domestic nature, but I don't conflate my dog with my cat, or for that matter with a goat or pig or cow. They're similar, or even "alike", but not exactly the same. Lee erred by conflating things such that it our LC mantra, repeated in song and story, became "Christ is everything", and nearly nothing. The LC "Christ" could be whatever one (Lee) wanted it to be. And what wasn't wanted, i.e "love your neighbor" or "remember the poor", could be ignored. "We're just here for Christ".

The same thing with the LC idea of "becoming God". Instead of reliance upon and restriction to the word of scripture, today whatever the LC uber bosses want is perforce God, and whatever they don't want is ignored. Doesn't matter if God repeatedly sent messengers to tell us all something - "No; we're only interested in God's economy, and becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...we're promised that we'll be "transformed into the same image, from glory to glory", but image and glorification doesn't mean becoming God. My dog is like my cat ...

Each animal was created after it's own kind (Gen 1:24,25). And we are arguably "God's kind". God our Creator is also our Father in heaven. We were once estranged, but by faith are now endeavouring to return home.

But the essential point, never overturned or contravened that I can see, is "Hear O Israel; God is one". God alone is God. That's never compromised, ever. I don't wish an attempt. I'm hopefully returning to my destiny by becoming God's kind, but I'm not God. Nor is anyone else that I can see, other than Jesus Christ Himself. And yes we are called to be "one" even as Jesus is one with the Father, but that doesn't mean that my identity is merged with Joe and Pete and Susie down the street. It means cooperation, sympathy, coordination. We are "one" with God by being fully obedient to His will. But we are not God. And I am "one" with Joe, but Joe is Joe and I am me.

Secondly, I repeat my earlier comments about stewardship and faithfulness. "It's expected of a servant that he (or she) be found faithful." (see e.g. 1 Cor 4:1-8). And indeed the faithful and prudent servant can hope for reward. But to reach beyond one's grasp is anathema.

In this vein I presented the example of faithful stewardship, given repeatedly in scripture. I used the example of Gabriel, speaking to Zechariah, and Mary; Gabriel stood before God's throne (Luke 1:19) and received the word of command, and as an emissary who was sent, conveyed the message faithfully to its designated recipient. But Gabriel the faithful steward, entrusted with God's will, never presumed pride of place; no one suggested Gabriel becoming God. If Gabriel the faithful, sinless angel never lifts himself up beyond what is seemly, then why should I the redeemed sinner?

"Oh, but don't you know that we'll judge the angels?" (1 Cor 6:2,3). If you're basing deification notions on such slender reeds, good luck. I won't. It's simply insufficient basis; it's the usual "Lee's logical leaps" in action. Imaginary worlds built out of cherry-picked verses.

[Cal]

You know what's bizarre about all this? Do you think there is any other group of Christians in the world who sit around and wonder and debate and fret over whether there is anything to the idea that man will "become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead"?

Probably not. Healthy Christians are looking for ways to know God better and to live more according to his will, to go about their lives in ways that their behavior (as opposed to their "being", whatever a "being" is) pleases God.

There is something seriously demented about being so hung up on these things, assuming your interest is anything but academic. Why do we do it? It's not because of the idea itself. It's because we are still debating whether Witness Lee has some kind of special insight into things. That's what the worry is, or at least the reason for discussion. It's not about the ideas themselves. It's about Lee, and his movement.

In the meantime, it's a distraction. Or could be.

"God in life and nature but not the Godhead." Who cares? Might as well be debating transubstantiation, for all the good it will do us.

Just a random thought.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

How does that differ from Genesis 1:27? I'll raise the question to the pastor of the community church I meet with and see what his input may be.

[Freedom]

It was brought to my attention that Chris Wilde of LSM made a presentation this last week at the annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society. The following email is from the DCP:

Dear brothers,
This Wednesday, November 18, Brother Chris Wilde will be presenting a paper at the annual conference of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. The paper is titled “’In Life and Nature but not in the Godhead’: Witness Lee’s Contribution to a Biblical Understanding of Theosis” (theosis is another term for deification). Paul Copan, a brother we met through CRI, will also present on theosis during the same session and introduce Chris.

In addition, five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us. We recognize that there is a new generation of scholars who may not be affected by the baggage of past slanders and who may be open to get to know this ministry.

This conference is the largest of its kind and represents an opportunity to present the truth of God’s “much more” salvation in life to a broad audience of scholars, teachers, pastors, and students. Interest in the subject of deification has been increasing among some evangelicals in recent years. However, these views of theosis lack the essential truth that in regeneration the believers receive the “life and nature” of God, and thus also lacks both coherent biblical teaching and a clear, practical way to enter into the process of God’s organic salvation.

We hope that the paper, presentation, and contact with proper scholars will be another step toward making the ministry of the age accessible to more believers.

We also know that some of those who signed the 2007 open letter criticizing Brother Lee, LSM, and the local churches will be there.

We ask that you stand with us in praying:

1. That the Lord will anoint our brother’s presentation and open the ears of the attendees;
2. That the brothers will be led to the proper ones and be empowered in His grace to be His ambassadors;
3. That the paper would reach those who the Lord has prepared; and
4. That the enemy would be bound and that some of the signers of the open letter might repent.

In Him,
the brothers at Defense and Confirmation Project

From the sound of things, Chris Wilde and the DCP have at least managed to find an audience that will hear what they have to say regarding WL's teachings. I have no idea who this Paul Copan fellow is. I do realize that there is some amount of interest these days in theosis, so maybe this kind of presentation wouldn't raise any red flags in and of itself. As the email indicates, signers of the open letter attended this conference, so I am curious as to how that played out.

Even if Chris and the DCP manage to gain any leeway with this audience (which is doubtful), that doesn't at all equal anyone there caring any more about WL than before. Obviously, the ultimate goal of Chris Wilde and the DCP being there was to promote WL.

As the email states:
"five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us."

They also say:
"We hope that the paper, presentation, and contact with proper scholars will be another step toward making the ministry of the age accessible to more believers."

If only those attending this conference realized what the DCP thinks of them. The DCP sees them all as misguided sheep in need of the one and only "ministry of the age". I would hope that for their own sake, the DCP and Chris Wilde could develop some meaningful relationships with these people, on the level such that they would be willing to learn from others outside the LC.

[UntoHim]

How very telling that DCP chose Chris Wilde to do this presentation. To my knowledge Chris has ZERO formal theological training. He is a media/public relations person. His background is in radio. Ron Kangas is the one with a theological degree. (Princeton?) Why was Kangas not chosen for this presentation?

Of course the reason for using Wilde is painfully obvious - they are not interested in presenting what Witness Lee actually taught regarding this matter (that would get them laughed off the stage) they need to present the "sanitized" version, and for this they need a professional - a spinmeister extraordinaire. Enter Christ Wilde.

In addition, five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us. We recognize that there is a new generation of scholars who may not be affected by the baggage of past slanders and who may be open to get to know this ministry.

This is laugh out loud, knee-slapping hilarious!
Since when are the brothers of the LC/LSM/DCP interested in "dialogue"? Dialogue, in theory anyway, IS A TWO-WAY EXCHANGE. Local Churchers are not trained in dialogue, they want to teach and preach the ministry of Witness Lee - period. "the baggage of past slanders"? By this they no doubt are referring to the actual, in depth, apologetically sound critique of what Witness Lee actually taught on a day-to-day basis.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How very telling that DCP chose Chris Wilde to do this presentation. To my knowledge Chris has ZERO formal theological training. He is a media/public relations person. His background is in radio. Ron Kangas is the one with a theological degree. (Princeton?) Why was Kangas not chosen for this presentation?

Of course the reason for using Wilde is painfully obvious - they are not interested in presenting what Witness Lee actually taught regarding this matter (that would get them laughed off the stage) they need to present the "sanitized" version, and for this they need a professional - a spinmeister extraordinaire. Enter Christ Wilde.

There has to be some back story behind this presentation that Chris Wilde did, but of course, his job is just to explain what WL taught, and how WL supposedly didn't really mean everything the way that he said it. WL's teaching regarding deification was one thing that brought the LC under the radar of the cult-watcher groups in the first place. If this presentation was meant to show WL's "contributions" to the subject, then it is all the more ironic that his ministry would need to be "sanitized" for public consumption. If WL's ministry is really all so special, then why can't it be taken at face value? Why would they need a full-time spokesman and a defense team for his ministry?

Had WL not claimed that deification was the ultimate goal of our existence, would these brothers even be out there supporting this teaching? Me thinks not. This all leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is little value in the teaching itself. The reason they make such a big deal about it is because they are compelled to support whatever WL taught.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is laugh out loud, knee-slapping hilarious!
Since when are the brothers of the LC/LSM/DCP interested in "dialogue"? Dialogue, in theory anyway, IS A TWO-WAY EXCHANGE. Local Churchers are not trained in dialogue, they want to teach and preach the ministry of Witness Lee - period. "the baggage of past slanders"? By this they no doubt are referring to the actual, in depth, apologetically sound critique of what Witness Lee actually taught on a day-to-day basis.

As I see it, the LSM/DCP/blendeds are fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have hardly been able to find anyone who is willing to offer their support of the LCM, and even then probably a majority of people still view WL and the LC as being aberrant. If they ever managed to convince people that the LC is an orthodox group of Christians, they still have the problem of trying to convince people that WL's ministry is somehow more special than any other ministry out there. Theologians of all people should realize that the ministry of any one person is nothing to obsess over. This is what I think that these DCP brothers don't understand. Lets say they somehow managed to convince their audience that WL's teaching of deification deserves a second look. It's not like everyone is going to become suddenly obsessed with all things WL.

I'm inclined to think that many of the LC "opposers" were the very ones who requested dialogue with LC leaders. The reason the criticism hasn't relented is because LC leaders haven't been able to engage in reasonable dialogue. LC leaders want to be the ones to offer "affirmation and critique" of others, but they can't handle when it's directed at themselves. With the open letter from the 70 scholars, a very public request was made to LC leadership for a frank dialogue about WL's teachings, particularly that there would be the willingness to reject certain teachings. Those were not at all unreasonable requests, and if LC leaders really had a heart for dialogue, they would have taken these kinds of things seriously. In particular, one thing they could do would be to stop labeling these criticisms as slander and ask themselves the difficult question of why so many Christians on the outside are so concerned for them. If all these "outsiders" were intent on slandering the LC, then I can't imagine why they would be expressing so much concern for those in the LC, ill motives and concern are not two things that mix.

I would say that WL's "ministry of the age" (a ministry of yesteryear) becomes more and more irrelevant with each passing day. If WL's ministry really had so much to offer, particularly his teaching of deification, Christians would have been receptive of it long ago. As we approach the 20 year anniversary of WL's passing, it seems all the more absurd that certain supporters of WL are still out and about attempting to drum up support for and generate appreciation of WL's ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As I see it, the LSM/DCP/blendeds are fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have hardly been able to find anyone who is willing to offer their support of the LCM, and even then probably a majority of people still view WL and the LC as being aberrant. If they ever managed to convince people that the LC is an orthodox group of Christians, they still have the problem of trying to convince people that WL's ministry is somehow more special than any other ministry out there.

Not to make an equal comparison, but Apostle Paul (and all the other apostles) faced some serious opposition in his day to his own teachings. He, however, responded in this way: “And looking intently at the council, Paul said, men and brethren, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” -- Acts 23.1

Witness Lee, however, lost his standing amidst his many failed business deals, unending lawsuits, and numerous smear campaigns towards those who, like Paul, spoke their conscience. Now take a look at how Paul upholds his ministry, in what may be considered Lee's theme verse: "Neither give heed to myths and endless genealogies, which minister questionings, rather than God's economy which is in faith; But the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith." -- I Timothy 1.4-5

Think about how many "myths and unending genealogies" we heard surrounding church history and the lineage of MOTA's. Talk about "ministering questionings!" How can Lee speak of the "goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart," when we heard the constant drumbeat of condemnation towards all of "poor, poor, Christianity." Paul, however, said that love "takes no account of evil." Finally how can Lee stand in all "good conscience" having swindled the saints, smeared other LC leaders, and sued the rest of Christianity?

Then he has the nerve to boast that only he "sees God's economy."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

How very telling that DCP chose Chris Wilde to do this presentation. To my knowledge Chris has ZERO formal theological training. He is a media/public relations person. His background is in radio. Ron Kangas is the one with a theological degree. (Princeton?) Why was Kangas not chosen for this presentation?

Of course the reason for using Wilde is painfully obvious - they are not interested in presenting what Witness Lee actually taught regarding this matter (that would get them laughed off the stage) they need to present the "sanitized" version, and for this they need a professional - a spinmeister extraordinaire. Enter Christ Wilde.

I don't claim to know much about Chris Wilde, but my perception (in a good way) is he's a pawn and puppet of LSM. While many current blended brothers were in Southern California or LSM co-workers during the late 80's, where was Chris? In Pullman, Washington?
I really don't think he's equipped to field difficult questions someone like Ron Kangas or Ed Marks would be. For the most part I see Chris as a naïve PR brother.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't claim to know much about Chris Wilde, but my perception (in a good way) is he's a pawn and puppet of LSM. While many current blended brothers were in Southern California or LSM co-workers during the late 80's, where was Chris? In Pullman, Washington?
I really don't think he's equipped to field difficult questions someone like Ron Kangas or Ed Marks would be. For the most part I see Chris as a naïve PR brother.

Presumably Chris would better PR skills than some of the others. As we all know, some of the blendeds don't seem to know much about interpersonal communication skills. When criticism is directed towards them labels like "lawless users of the internet" will appear, without so much as a simple effort to engage in dialogue.

Originally Posted by Terry

What does this quote really meant to imply?
Open to LSM and closed to criticism?
Is it possible to have an openness towards the ministry and still have questions that haven't been answered?

If the DCP is in search of theologians that are "open to the ministry", they are on a wild goose chase. Like you say, various people have asked LC leaders to answer to some of WL's statements and teachings. Until there is a willingness by LC leaders handle criticism and distance themselves from certain things that WL taught, they are not going to have many supporters.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As the email states:
"five brothers from DCP will attend the conference to seek out those who are open to learn about this ministry and dialogue with us."

What does this quote really meant to imply?
Open to LSM and closed to criticism?
Is it possible to have an openness towards the ministry and still have questions that haven't been answered?

[ByHisGrace]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

I spoke to an LC member about this discussion on "God in life and nature but not in the Godhead".

Here is the person's response:

There is nothing wrong to say that we become God in life and nature! I really don't know how you read bible!
John 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,
8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
8:15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Future Glory )

To answer your question

Re: Paul and Barnabas' reaction in Acts 14 after the Lycaonians had tried to deify them:
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them..."

Answer: That is why we emphasized that "but NOT in the Godhead"!

[OBW]

"Quote" is not working again.

John 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Receive the Holy Spirit, not be the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Is one with him in spirit. "One in spirit" is a term that most clearly denotes a common bond and connection, not a unity of person.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

"by the Spirit" does not make you the Spirit, or God. It just refers to the means by which you cease to live your sinful life.

8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Making too much of attribution. "Son" does not obviously mean anything about source, just of status. A son is offspring, both blood and adopted, that have a status with respect to the one who is the father.

8:15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

A verse with a controversial translation. Better is "adopted to sonship." Don't use the minority translation to insist on something that even with it is not necessarily so. See my previous comment about sons.

8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

Still by choice. Yes, there is reference to rebirth, but it is a spiritual rebirth, not a physical rebirth. We are not God in anything. And I would suggest that while it is not necessarily so, rebirth was not something foreign to the Jewish mind of the day. It was the term they used when referring to a Gentile becoming accepted as a Jew by conversion. It is a statement of change of status, not of literal birth. (Ever wonder why Jesus marveled that Nicodemus didn't get the concept of being born again? It was not just to snip at him for truly not knowing. Rather, it was something that should not have been foreign to him.)

8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Adopted children are also heirs unless they are specifically cut-out of the will.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is one with him in spirit. "One in spirit" is a term that most clearly denotes a common bond and connection, not a unity of person.

Angels are also ministering spirits. And they are one with God, in common purpose and direction. Thus they are one in spirit. Nothing about becoming God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by LC member, per BHG

There is nothing wrong to say that we become God in life and nature! I really don't know how you read bible!

If you look at the verses cited, they don't say anything (to me) about becoming God.

"one with Him in spirit..." We are one in spirit, as well. Does that mean I am becoming you and you are becoming me? It's really too hopeful of a reading, and doesn't stand up to any critical examination.

Originally Posted by LC member

Answer: That is why we emphasized that "but NOT in the Godhead"!

Yes and I'm becoming the Queen Mary just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary-head (or hood). I also swim occasionally in the Pacific Ocean. So I am like the Queen Mary. Therefore I am the Queen Mary! Just NOT in the Queen Mary-hood. That is reserved for the Queen Mary alone. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

I admit that I am not made of metal, and not painted black with red trim. That alone belongs to the Queen Mary. And I don't have 4 large funnels, and four large propellers. But I do participate in certain aspects of the Queen Mary, and thus have the full assurance that I'm becoming more and more like the Queen Mary, day by day.

So if I swim, I am like the Queen Mary, and thus I'm becoming the Queen Mary. Just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary. No - I won't go there. That would be ridiculous. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the verses cited, they don't say anything (to me) about becoming God.

"one with Him in spirit..." We are one in spirit, as well. Does that mean I am becoming you and you are becoming me? It's really too hopeful of a reading, and doesn't stand up to any critical examination.

For me personally, the strongest scriptural basis for Lee's so-called "high peak" theology, abbreviated here -- GodBecameManTMMGILANBNITheGodHead -- was our spiritual birth, and the fact that all offspring are the same "in life and nature" as their parents. It made "sense," but the Bible never said it.

The matter of "oneness" had little to do with it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes and I'm becoming the Queen Mary just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary-head (or hood). I also swim occasionally in the Pacific Ocean. So I am like the Queen Mary. Therefore I am the Queen Mary! Just NOT in the Queen Mary-hood. That is reserved for the Queen Mary alone. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

I admit that I am not made of metal, and not painted black with red trim. That alone belongs to the Queen Mary. And I don't have 4 large funnels, and four large propellers. But I do participate in certain aspects of the Queen Mary, and thus have the full assurance that I'm becoming more and more like the Queen Mary, day by day.

So if I swim, I am like the Queen Mary, and thus I'm becoming the Queen Mary. Just not in the fullness of the Queen Mary. No - I won't go there. That would be ridiculous. (But I'm the Queen Mary!)

I like aron's analogy. The "not in the Godhead" disclaimer actually contradicts the teaching itself. The Bible already says that were were made in the image of God, so the idea that we have a certain amount of God-likeness is just a basic understanding that Christians have.

I was thinking about it today, and one of the main reasons that we believe God is God is because He possess a set of characteristics and attributes that are distinct from what us humans posses. If God didn't have a certain nature, then he wouldn't be God. On the flip side, if we had the same attributes as God that makes him God, then there would be a multitude rival gods, thus diluting who God is.

If we say that we have certain similar attributes to God, but nothing that would interfere with who God is, then that isn't saying anything at all, because we already know that. Lets say that God has x unique attributes. If humans could posses up to x-1 of those attributes, that still wouldn't constitute being God. It simply doesn't make sense for anyone to claim to be God unless they are God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If we say that we have certain similar attributes to God, but nothing that would interfere with who God is, then that isn't saying anything at all, because we already know that. Lets say that God has x unique attributes. If humans could posses up to x-1 of those attributes, that still wouldn't constitute being God. It simply doesn't make sense for anyone to claim to be God unless they are God.

You have my argument in a nutshell, here.

Look at the angels, for example. Like humanity, created in God's image.

"And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."

Ministering spirits, arguably one spirit with God: i.e. commonality of purpose. Absolutely consecrated:"holy angels", etc. God is spirit; angels are spirits. God is holy, God's angels are holy.

Called "sons of God". Job 1:6, 2:1.

They share the Father's glory: "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26

Very impressive creatures. But creatures. Not God. When John was overwhelmed with awe and fell down before one, the angel said, "Don't do that! I am your fellow servant. Worship God." The angel didn't say, "I am becoming God, but not in the God-head, not as an object of worship. That is reserved for God alone." The angel just said, "worship God". Revelation 19:10; 22:9.

So "God but not in the God-head" is a make-believe term. It's just parsing yourself into your own imagination, unsupported by any real or tangible structure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

So "God but not in the God-head" is a make-believe term.... unsupported by any real or tangible structure.

To be more charitable, it is speculation. Scripture doesn't say it, but your logic, desires, and imagination paint the picture nonetheless. And you convince yourself that the picture is compelling.

And I do it too, perhaps more than many. I dream, imagine, and see visions. But I don't presume my visions are objective reality. I allow the consensus of the flock to prune them away, even to grind them back to dust. It's okay.

So I hope the LC'ers, they of the "Affirmation and Critique" school, aren't too disappointed if others critique their ideas. Certainly "man becoming God", along with the corollary "God but NOT in the God-head" are ideas worth critical examining. And if my examination has lacked decorum, or respect, I apologize.

[aron]

"Exactly Identical" and "Mass Reproduction"

Originally Posted by Freedom

If we say that we have certain similar attributes to God, but nothing that would interfere with who God is, then that isn't saying anything at all, because we already know that. Lets say that God has x unique attributes. If humans could posses up to x-1 of those attributes, that still wouldn't constitute being God...

One of my remaining LC friends recently was telling me about the latest message, and he was so excited. He kept talking about "mass reproduction" and being "exactly identical." Curious: why was Witness Lee, a one-time salesman of tennis rackets, chairs and cheap men's suits, fixated on this idea of mass reproduction? The only thing I remember being mass reproduced in the Bible was the bricks in the tower of Babel. Not really a model of "God's New Testament Economy".

"It is not a school or factory, or chapel in the air", so we sang. Turns out that the "splendid church life" is a factory, after all.

Here was the quote in question, which excited my LC contact so much:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

"The church is the reproduction of Christ. We can say this because the lampstand in Exodus was one, and the lampstands in Revelation are seven. The one lampstand has been reproduced. The unique lampstand in Exodus became a model, out of which came seven lampstands. The seven lampstands are exactly the same as the unique lampstand in essence, nature, shape, and in every respect...

To say that the church is the Body, the continuation, the enlargement, and the spreading of Christ is not enough. We all have to see that the church is an exact reproduction of Christ. Christ was the unique lampstand, and all the churches are the lampstands in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function." (CWWL, 1975-1976, vol 2, The Church - the Reprint of the Spirit)

I thought, "Why, here's an interesting thing", and said to my friend, "How can you say that the lampstands in Revelation are exactly identical with the one in Exodus? The one in Exodus had seven lamps. If the seven lampstands in Revelation each had seven lamps, there would be forty-nine lamps burning in front of the throne! But there are only seven lamps burning there!"

My friend said, "Well, other than that, they're exactly identical."

I said, "You know what? Other than that minor detail, yes; every lampstand is an exact reproduction of the Exodus lampstand."

I don't know why WL forced readings that were not there. And look at his language: "We all have to see..." It's like he's hypnotizing his audience to see something that isn't even there. Amazing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Witness Lee
"The church is the reproduction of Christ. We can say this because the lampstand in Exodus was one, and the lampstands in Revelation are seven. The one lampstand has been reproduced. The unique lampstand in Exodus became a model, out of which came seven lampstands. The seven lampstands are exactly the same as the unique lampstand in essence, nature, shape, and in every respect...

To say that the church is the Body, the continuation, the enlargement, and the spreading of Christ is not enough. We all have to see that the church is an exact reproduction of Christ. Christ was the unique lampstand, and all the churches are the lampstands in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function."(CWWL, 1975-1976, vol 2, The Church - the Reprint of the Spirit)

Spiritually, all the churches are the same, since the corollary in Ephesians 4.4-6 provides us with further description:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Thus, the Bible Baptist Church on the corner is absolutely identical "in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function" to the West Park Community Church on the next block because both churches gather in His name and have just "one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all."

Now the mosque around the corner is, of course, quite different, not holding onto any of these items. Who cares if one church leader is called "Pastor" or another "Brother" or even "Mr. Full-Timer" like the LC's. Who cares if one church has "holy communion" or another the "Lord's Supper" or even the "Lord's Table." Who really cares what names are used on the signboard if like Lee says, they are all identical "in the same essence, nature, model, shape, and function."

The bottom line is simple -- if you can see differences with your eyes -- then they are by definition insignificant -- because the Revelations' lampstands are spiritual, and not physical. As Paul tells us so clearly in II Corinthians 4.18, "We do not focus our attention on the things which are seen, but the things which are not seen, for that which we see with our eyes is temporary, and that which is unseen is eternal."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, this saying regularly quoted in the LC's about the 7 churches in Asia, that they are "only different in negative things," is poppycock. Read the verses, the Lord praises each church for very different items.

[NewManLiving]

It is probably best to stick with what the Word actually says about it. The Apostle John - the one whom Jesus loved, the one whom reclined upon The Lord's breast, one of the three closest to Him has this to say: We do not know what we will be, but we know that we will be "like" Him.

Now if this is all John could offer on such an important subject, certainly no one else knows any better. And unfortunately many things that come from WL need to be reconsidered. I believe that he was too extreme and imaginative. There is no need to "add" anything to scripture. The Lord's word is already complete.

[aron]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

It is probably best to stick with what the Word actually says about it. The Apostle John - the one whom Jesus loved, the one whom reclined upon The Lord's breast, one of the three closest to Him has this to say: We do not know what we will be, but we know that we will be "like" Him.

Now if this is all John could offer on such an important subject, certainly no one else knows any better. And unfortunately many things that come from WL need to be reconsidered. I believe that he was too extreme and imaginative. There is no need to "add" anything to scripture. The Lord's word is already complete.

Yes, we will be like Him. Aspiration enough for this sinner, today. Lord, make me like You.

My dogs are like my cat. All are furry household pets. All come running when I call for dinner (well, my cat, not always). All have the "domesticated mammalian" life and nature.

But my cat is not my dog. (And actually, my three dogs are not identical. Spike is different from Youdy is different from Ralph. Even though two of them are litter-mates.)

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, we will be like Him. Aspiration enough for this sinner, today. Lord, make me like You.

My dogs are like my cat. All are furry household pets. All come running when I call for dinner (well, my cat, not always). All have the "domesticated mammalian" life and nature.

But my cat is not my dog. (And actually, my three dogs are not identical. Spike is different from Youdy is different from Ralph. Even though two of them are litter-mates.)

Yes, it is best to stick with the exact words of scripture on this topic. The danger is in adding or taking away from it.

I recall that one of the angels, the son's of God, wanted to exalt his throne above the other angels and be like God, and that was Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-14), and look where that got him.

I also recall Phillipians 2:5-10, which reads:

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, it is best to stick with the exact words of scripture on this topic. The danger is in adding or taking away from it.

I believe the apostle John mentioned something about the danger of adding or taking away from the words of the prophecy.

So Witness Lee supplying details like "not in the Godhead" or ignoring the six missing lamps on each of the supposedly exact reproduction lampstands in Revelation 1 show me a person willing to leave the safety of scripture for the convenience of hermeneutics.

Originally Posted by JJ

I recall that one of the angels, the son's of God, wanted to exalt his throne above the other angels and be like God, and that was Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-14), and look where that got him.

And I remember Adam and Eve, who ate the forbidden fruit, and became "like God, knowing good from evil". (Gen 3:5;22). There is enough vagarity in the term "like", both in conventional usage and scriptural record, that we shouldn't be too eager to seize it for our temporal or exegetical ends. I guess WL the oracle of God trumped WL the former accountant. Vagarity was an opportunity to move, rather than a caution.

Originally Posted by JJ

I also recall Phillipians 2:5-10, which reads:

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The irony here is that WL might be right. If we humble ourselves, and follow Jesus, who knows what exaltation might lie beyond? Even "being made God" in some unknown form?

But degree of glory is not clearly stated. So to presume pride of place, here on earth, when the scripture doesn't elucidate it, is unwise. In fact, the scripture seems stubbornly vague, to me. When the disciples continually pressed Jesus for details, He resolutely refused.

"Lord, what about this one?" got "It is not for you to know"

"Lord, grant my sons to sit at the right hand and the left" got "It is for those whom the Father chooses", etc.

Why push past this clear deferral? Just leave it alone. Be humble and don't declare some station that may not be yours. Let God decide such matters.

[JJ]

To Him (God) be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus. To Him be the glory forever and ever. Regardless of the glory He shares with the church at any time, the object of everyone's praise is still God. While members of the church are told they will sit on thrones judging the nations, the nations bring their glory into the New Jerusalem where Christ and God sit on the throne. And at the end of all time, Christ gives the throne to God the Father for eternity, where he will be praised by all creation for eternity.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

One of the LSM's pet-phrases is "God becoming a man that man may become God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead".

It is even described in the FTTA website as the "highest peak of the divine revelation" (http://ftta.org/about/purpose-and-goal/)

The phrase "God in life and in nature, but not in the Godhead" is unsatisfactory because it is too wide. If I became "God in life and nature", I would expect to also be omnipotent and omniscient since omnipotence and omniscience are part of God's nature. Even a staunch LSM believer would probably accept that Witness Lee and any aspiring overcomers were not and could never become omnipotent and omniscient.

Perhaps it is an impossible task to begin with:- But if you had to tell an unbeliever in one sentence what you thought was the "highest peak of the divine revelation" of the Bible, what would it be?

I would try modifying the LSM's phrase so that it now read "God redeeming man that he may be restored to the image of God".

The high peak of the divine revelation is the incredible person of Jesus Christ. That is why the Bible ends with the "the testimony of Jesus" (that is the spirit of the prophesy in Revelation). When churches fail to be the testimony of Jesus (and testify of other things) bad things happen.

[Paul Vusik]

With all the hate and disparaging remarks for the Catholic Church from LSM, what is nteresting, that I find myself reading almost the very same beliefs found in their teachings. Here is a quote from the Catholic Church, so one can just compare this to the writings of LSM, and it’s almost word for word:


The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 460,
“The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Just for clarification, I don’t think that Catholic Church teaches any Biblically sound theology, although the terminology they use sounds very close to that of Biblical Christianity.

[Raptor]

"God in life and nature but not in the Godhead"...is not scriptural, it pushes the boundaries of the truth in the Bible concerning the status of the believers and redefines and misuses the title "God."

The Bible has plenty to say about who the believers are, but it never says they are God nor GIL&NnGH. Rather it uses many metaphors such as members of the Body of Christ, Bride of Christ, House of God, and branches in the Vine. None of these descriptions imply or mean they themselves are the Head or Husband, or the Owner of the house, or the Vine. And saying that they are, but not in the "Head-Head", "Husband-Head," "Owner-Head," "Vine-Head," is just silly and awkward and pushing language and theology beyond what is Scriptural.

And the Bible also says without using a metaphor, that believers are sons of God. This is the most common definition for the believers either directly and literally stated or implied by referring to God as their Father. Believers DO have God´s life and nature because they are born of God, but that even more so underlines the fact they are sons of God.

Being a son of God does not mean we can say a believer is God (IL&NnGH). If anything, it means a believer is divine. Divine yes, but God no. Even if you add "in life and nature but not in the Godhead," it is still going beyond what is written. This would be the same as someone saying, "I was born of my dad, therefore I am my dad, in life and nature but not in the dad-head." That´s silly. No, you were born of your dad, you are his son; you are human, yes, but you are not your dad. You are a son of dad.

There is no need to go beyond Scripture and strectch meanings, redefine words and create confusion. Stick with what is predominantly stated, God is our Father, and we are His sons.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26