God became man that man might become God

[Oregon]

This particular teaching has been quite a bother to me.....even when I was attending the meetings of the LC. I hope I am not repeating earlier postings although the chance of that being so is probably quite high since this became the central theme of Witness Lee's view and thoughts concerning what he termed...."God's economy". Even though the words and something of the thought can be traced back to Athanasius, this does not at all put any kind of doctrinal authoritative stamp of approval on it....at least not to me. I've asked my brother....a full time participant in the LC this simple question. Why didn't the apostles use this kind of language, especially the apostle Paul, in any of their writings. Of course he had no answer but simply looked at me.

After having been in the local churches for most of my adult life......having pray read literally tens of thousands of hours......called "Oh Lord Jesus"(blessed be our wonderful Lord...not to discredit our Lord at all) umpteen times.....I believe that I have not become one wit more God in life and nature than I was when I first came into the LC at age 17. Peter says we partake of the divine nature. I believe this and feel that I certainly have. Paul says we behold and reflect.....I know this is true also....but becoming God in life and nature.......I have huge questions and doubts about this. My personal experience is this When I stop beholding......I stop reflecting. When I don't partake of the divine nature.....I certainly don't manifest it in my own life.

To me.....it's more like ......the light in the kitchen is either on or off. It didn't slowly become on. Paul said ...."walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh". That is my life and I have no doubt it is yours also. If I walk in the Spirit then I am partaking of the divine nature and I can reflect the one I am beholding. If I don't......I will fulfill the lust of the flesh. Now where in this scenario did I become God in life and nature. I simply participated in the life and nature of another. When I ceased to participate....I was just my fallen self again. How did I become God in life and nature. I suppose for whatever the length of time I walked in the Spirit I experinced God as my life and nature.......I can certainly believe this and see no conflict with what is presented in the writings of the apostles. "Becoming God" though.......that's a whole different story. Thoughts anyone?

[UntoHim]

Man, and I was juuuuussssttt going to address this issue...you beat me to it!

So very good to hear from you Oregon!

I have lots of "thoughts" about this of course. Have to run off and try to make some $ now though. I'll try to get a post in later today.

[OBW]

Oregon,

Great questions. And to top it off, I would like it if someone could give a history of Lee's teachings on the subject.

We left in 1987 and I must say that I do not recall hearing about man becoming God. Was I just beginning to check out enough that it was slipping by me, or was it just about that time that it began?

And besides the little slogan that keeps getting quoted, what exactly did he say to set this teaching up?

[Oregon]

Hi OBW......1987....I remember that period well.....about the time when some of the so called pillars of the church were departing....John Ingalls, Bill Malon etc. That was a very troublesome time and I've never felt any heart commitment to the LC's since then.

I don't want to state the history of the "Man becoming God" teaching wrongly.....so I can only comment on it from my personal view and experience. It's been a growing thing over the last 2 decades and is fairly well cemented into local church doctrine at this point. I think it is really the outgrowth and final end of Witness Lees view of what transformation is..... the bit by bit nature of God adding Himself to us thing.

I personally believe that when one becomes a believer he gets all of what God is at that time. The believer may or may not walk in God but never the less....when he was born again he got connected with the eternal creator and the One who is all in all. If we "take up our cross.....deny ourself....and follow Him"...as the Lord said.....we will no doubt have a fuller experience of abiding in Him. We enter into and abide in Him. We experience him as our life. I think that is a very different thought than "Man becoming God."

Of course the phrase is always added...."in life and nature but not in the Godhead".....so what the LC people actually say is "God became man so that man might become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead". I know the LC people are not like the Mormons who actually do believe that they will become gods. My problem with this teaching is that I don't believe I am becoming God.......I believe I am entering into God and abiding in Him and partaking of what he is. To me that is a very different thought. The LC people are looking for some kind of transformation in their being over time that will be a vindication of this truth. Many have become discouraged and even fallen away over the years because this so called change never happens. In my thought.....it isn't supposed to happen and isn't going to happen. It's a flawed teaching that sets people up for great disapointment.

Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches..........abide in me and I in you." If the branch does not abide in the vine it becomes withered and is good to be burned. That is my experience. I'm not becoming God......I am just me......the fallen sinner in need of God constantly. I only exibit a change in my life and being as long as I abide in him. If I cease.....I wither away and am just my old self again. I believe this is what is taught in the NT and is real to me. The "becoming God" thing has never been real to me and I don't believe it is what the NT teaches.

[Timelord]

OBW

Somehow you missed that teaching on the God-men. T. Neil Duddy put out his book against Lee called “The God-men” in 1977, and an updated edition in 1981. The LC sued the author of that book around that time. Lee must have used the terminology if in no other way than in self defense around the time that the suit was taking place. Maybe other doctrines were more important to you and to the LC at the time you were in the LC. It is almost considered a believe or leave doctrine now because the whole purpose of being in the LC is to become an overcomer, which is also equated with becoming a God-man.

Oregon

“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pet 1:2-4).

The idea of Deification is based primarily on these verses. According to Lee, being partakers of the divine nature equaled becoming a God-man. It is the same as the doctrine of Perfectionism that was taught by John Wesley in the 1800’s. We can get to the point that we are perfect or divine in this life. The mistake seems to be that it is thought that “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2), is something for this life instead of being something of the future. And instead of “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:3), Lee emphasized just turning to our spirit to attain the goal of becoming a God-man. He was constantly trying to make things simple, and coming up with simplistic opinions that required a lot of words to explain and through the many words became very complex.

According to John, we go through the process of purification now because we have a future hope that we will be like God and see him as he is. According to Peter we shall be partakers of the divine nature in the future. Lee thought that it is something that can be accomplished in the present.

In the beginning we were created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). Then the fall ruined that image and likeness (Gen 3). In the future we have the hope that the image and likeness will be fully restored. But it is not restored by our actions of purification or by simply turning to the spirit. Purification is because of a future hope and because of a present desire to be a present testimony for God and Jesus Christ.

There are two creations. In the first creation is a loss. In the second creation what was lost is regained, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17). There is only one way that the lost image and likeness can be regained, and that is in Christ who is the image (Col 1:15). And the image is not something that we can individually attain. It is something that we eventually attain together as the Body of Christ (Col 3:10). Jesus became in the likeness of men so that in him we might be renewed in the image of God. We don’t become God-men. The only God-man is Jesus Christ. The culmination of being in Christ is to be partakers of the divine nature and to be like God or in the likeness of God and to see God as he is. That does not even make us God-men in the future. It only means that we are in the God-man through whom is the restoration of being in the likeness and image of God.

The whole idea of Christian Mysticism as practiced in the Eastern Orthodox Church and in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Holiness denominations and in the LC is wrong for one simple reason. They are trying to attain something in the present that is meant for the future. In this era, we practice purification by walking according to the Spirit, in order that our minds may be renewed. We can study the Bible all day long, but if we are not walking according to the Spirit, all we will attain will be personal opinions, opinions that will not result in a renewing of our minds. We will be only conformed to our personal opinions. This is what Rom 8 and Gal 5 and Col 3 is all about. There is only one alternative to walking according to the Spirit. And that is walking according to the flesh. Walking according to the Spirit culminates in fruit that is related to life. Walking according to the flesh culminates in works that is related to death. And it is our choice as to which we do and which we have.

I think that it was John MacArthur who answered the question, How do I live the Christian life, with this answer, “walk according to the Spirit and do what you want”. He meant, of course, that if we are walking according to the Spirit, we will want to do what God would want us to do, to live how God would want us to live. And when we are doing what God wants us to do and living in the way that God wants us to live, we are living the Christian life. That no longer applies if we fall into walking according to the flesh. And from personal experience, the difference is pronounced and very noticeable no matter how we might try to fool ourselves or others. Once I walked according to the Spirit, I had no trouble telling when I was I slipping into walking according to the flesh.

In the LC, the partaking of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4) has become a present emphasis to the detriment of the previous verses (2 Pet 1:2-3). We have all things that we need through the knowledge of the one who has called us. We are given promises in the present that we might be partakers in the future. We are put into Christ and we walk according to the Spirit. In that state we grow in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ so that we might be a testimony of the God and Jesus Christ that we know in the present.

2 Peter begins “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord” and ends “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” Why is Jesus mentioned without mentioning God in the last verse? Because the whole purpose of God is in Christ.

“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him… For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them… According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph 1:10, 2:10, 3:11).

“Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches..........abide in me and I in you." If the branch does not abide in the vine it becomes withered and is good to be burned. That is my experience. I'm not becoming God......I am just me......the fallen sinner in need of God constantly. I only exibit a change in my life and being as long as I abide in him. If I cease.....I wither away and am just my old self again. I believe this is what is taught in the NT and is real to me. The "becoming God" thing has never been real to me and I don't believe it is what the NT teaches.”

God has used your experience to teach you well. Whether or not I was more fortunate, I learned this same teaching from teaching I received outside of the LC. So when I heard the teaching in the LC, I was able to understand it for what it was. A mistaken understanding of our present purpose on the earth, a mistaken understanding that crops up constantly. It seems that we are always in a hurry to experience things before it is time. We are to simply abide in Christ and walk according to the Spirit and put away the things of the flesh so that we can be the intended testimony in this life. That is truly simple. It is the simplicity that is in Christ. But we are always trying to add our own stuff to that and make it hard.

Timelord

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timelord

Somehow you missed that teaching on the God-men. T. Neil Duddy put out his book against Lee called “The God-men” in 1977, and an updated edition in 1981. The LC sued the author of that book around that time. Lee must have used the terminology if in no other way than in self defense around the time that the suit was taking place. Maybe other doctrines were more important to you and to the LC at the time you were in the LC. It is almost considered a believe or leave doctrine now because the whole purpose of being in the LC is to become an overcomer, which is also equated with becoming a God-man.

I remember the God-man teachings, but they were never as extreme as this "God in life and nature but not the Godhead" thing that I keep hearing. Duddy's book was more about making something that wasn't there at the time into part of his attack. But no one was pushing that were were "becoming God" in any way that I can recall. Being infused with God, being filled with God, even partaking of the divine nature. But not becoming God.

Did I simply refuse to accept that what was being taught was actually saying that? If so, it would have been because I would never have accepted that as proper teaching. I would have walked out much earlier if that was what I thought was meant.

Or was it an undercurrent in those earlier days that, like Lee not accepting being called an apostle, would eventually be cast aside and the "truth" that he really was The Apostle would become taught? Did this "man becoming God" teaching become stronger over time, taking center stage later on? I guess it could be that I have "fixed" my theology quite a bit over the years (some even without that much willful thought) and didn't recall this one ever being part of it as I look back.

[Oregon]

Excellent reply OBW.

The "we are becoming God" teaching was an evolving thing over time that is now totally cemented in. The entire LC, in my view, has been an evolving thing over my lifetime. It is no wonder that so many have left over the years.

Over the last year I have been reading a book that gives the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It was written by a member who had been deeply involved for over 30 years and finally escaped. The history of that movement, cult, organization....whatever you want to call it was woven into the book. I was amazed at the similarities between their history and that of the LC. What started out as a somewhat loosly knit group of people meeting in different places was slowly and purposly brought under total control of the Watchtower society. So that over the years any kind of independence was terminated and all assemblies were brought to the point of only reading the materials printed and sent out by the Watchtower society.

I know this is getting into a different topic area but the point is that what were once somewhat independent local churches have over time been slowly and purposely brought under control in the same way so that only the printed material of the Living Stream Ministry is promoted and read in the meetings.

The "we are becoming God " teaching is now fully spoken of as absolute truth. Witness Lee the Apostle spoke it.....it has been printed and reprinted in many LSM publications and it "IS" the ministry.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timelord

Somehow you missed that teaching on the God-men. T. Neil Duddy put out his book against Lee called “The God-men” in 1977, and an updated edition in 1981.

Another red flag to your level of "balance" in this discussion. You know too much to be so non-partisan.

[Timelord]

OBW

For someone who promotes discussion, you make a lot of assumptions. It is clear here and on the other thread. I’m not what you assume me to be, and what I say you seem intent on not understanding. The only “red flag” that I see is the one you keep holding up. If you want me to leave the forum, then just come out and say so.

Timelord

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Another red flag to your level of "balance" in this discussion. You know too much to be so non-partisan.

There is no requirement for posters to keep any particular "level of balance" on this forum, at least not in the sense that I think OBW is saying. Now, we are within the "apologetics" board so I would expect everybody to be somewhat restricted to discussions in this area. I don't think that Timelord has made any claim to be a "non-partisan", and even if he did, lets let his propositions, contentions and arguments stand or fall on their merits alone.

One of the few "rules" of this forum is not to engage is deception or subterfuge, with the spirit of the law being "say what you mean and mean what you say". I don't see where Timelord has violated the letter or even the spirit of the law here. But hey, lot's of things get past me, so everybody is more then free to send me a PM, or if they are really upset about a particular post then hit that triangle thingie at the bottom to "report" the post.

In any event I think we owe it to Oregon, the other members and any lurkers out there to maybe go back and re-read his opening post - it's a dandy, and it's worth a lot of consideration, discussion and yes, even argument. (the good kind)

Now, like so many of Witness Lee's teachings, back in the day he would not always come right out and state something in a plain and clear way. Many times it was a matter of "in so many words". Also, Lee was a man of great exaggeration and repetition - it was simply his method to the madness. Many of you oldies but goodies out there know exactly what I am saying here.

OBW wondered out loud:

Originally Posted by OBW

Or was it an undercurrent in those earlier days that, like Lee not accepting being called an apostle, would eventually be cast aside and the "truth" that he really was The Apostle would become taught? Did this "man becoming God" teaching become stronger over time, taking center stage later on?

There were tons and tons of "truths that really were" in the Local Church, and this "God becoming man so that man could become God" concept is just one of many. Looking back, I think we all knew deep down inside that we were not becoming God. We knew it, Witness Lee knew it, other Christians knew it, and God most certainly knew it. But Lee taught, and we all repeated many things back in those days. Now, with the blended brothers it seems they have set some of these teachings in concrete - something that I don't know if even Witness Lee would have done.

[Timelord]

UntoHim

Your mediating voice is welcome, to me at least.

A friend knew of my experience with the LC, and that I seemed to be able to intuitively see what the Bible actually says about many of the extreme positions of Witness Lee. He assumed that I could help former members of the LC to see that the Bible has a different position regarding some things that Lee said and regarding some of the overreactions of the former members of the LC to the teachings of Lee. He told me to check out both the board on the Berean forum and this forum that include predominately former members of the LC.

Unfortunately, there are those in these two locations that have reacted so much to Lee that if one’s position even mentions any thing close to what Lee believes, then the position is the position of Lee. Thus the reaction of OBW to what I have said on this forum. And Aron seems to have simply vanished. Strange since he was the one who started the first thread that I went on. It seemed to me that what the Bible says on the churches was a logical place to begin sharing about what the Bible says about the teachings of the LC, given Lee’s emphasis on the matter.

I knew nothing of either of these forums until my friend told me about them and that they were related to former members of the LC. I am not a member of the LC. I discount much of what Lee says as an extreme position that is not according to the Bible. I believe that was clearly stated in my posts. Apparently OBW was blind to that. And for some reason he wanted to emphasize the Mat 16:18 thing over the actual purpose of a thread on the churches. OBW doesn’t think that I could have possibly learned anything in the six months that I was actively engaged with the LC. I am a college kid and a voracious reader. And he apparently doesn’t think that I know how to use the internet, which is where I found something more exact about the God-men book than what I had heard about from one of the LC members. And he apparently thinks that it is impossible that I have had great help in growing in the Christian faith by people who know the Bible better than me, and far better than most on these forums.

If one asks questions in a judicious manner of the members of the LC, they are often very forthcoming about what they believe to be their own history and beliefs. I haven’t spent almost four years in college without learning how to ask judicious questions. What is sad is that apparently many of the former members of the LC must be treated with the same kid gloves as so many in the LC and the professors in college.

This will be my last post with these former members. I can see that most are little Witness Lee’s attempting to understand the Bible in the same way that he did, by interpreting the Bible so that it means to them according to their own preconceived ideas. And for those who continue in that manner, they will be ever searching for the truth without ever finding it. And I really don’t have time to share with people who only believe in the Bible insofar as it agrees with their own “vision”. College takes up a lot of my time. And I know too many people with whom I can share without that kind of aggravation.

My friend thought that former members of the LC would be more ready to see what the Bible actually says having already experienced the extreme position of the LC. That is of course impossible with people who are in a state of reaction, especially overreaction as with some of these people. I do not blame my friend. He had no way of knowing that such an extreme position as the LC would breed overreactions equal to that position. I on the other hand should have seen what was going on immediately, and I think that I did to some degree. Just not enough to keep me from coming on this forum in the first place.

I feel sorry for these particular former members of the LC. But I feel more for those who are much closer to me. Perhaps our Lord put these particular former members of the LC together for a purpose. What that purpose is I do not know. Another reason why I see no reason to continue on here. I only hope that they will learn to help one another instead of continuing to have fruitless discussions. And maybe they are helping one another in their own way. I hope so.

sister Carol

Concerning your two posts on the LCS factor thread, I must say, Amen.

It is good to hear from one who is content in the state that she is in and looks to Jesus alone for any change in that state that might occur. The lack of contentment is, I believe, a major reason for so many marital problems. That may account for so many saying that their split was over money. They do not realize that they make marriage seem like a bad thing. I am so thankful that among those who I fellowship with, this kind of thing is not common. The majority are content whether single or married. For me, marriage has such good potential for helping one another in the good and the bad times. But perhaps I am prejudiced. My fiancé, Lori, and I are best friends and we have been helping each other for years. We are blessed to have met in high school. We have agreed to marry in three years when we both will be through with college. And we have agreed that best friends is what we will always be in the Lord. We may not yet be married, but we both feel that we are already well on the way to oneness.

And we really appreciate how you are using Satan’s holiday against him. Lori and I have just been discussing this and we have agreed to start doing something like this, not only in relation to this holiday, but in relation to Christmas and Easter too. Children are involved in those holidays as well. And using cards or some such thing is natural in all three situations. So thank you for the idea.

Timelord

Originally Posted by Oregon

My problem with this teaching is that I don't believe I am becoming God.......I believe I am entering into God and abiding in Him and partaking of what he is. To me that is a very different thought. The LC people are looking for some kind of transformation in their being over time that will be a vindication of this truth. Many have become discouraged and even fallen away over the years because this so called change never happens. In my thought.....it isn't supposed to happen and isn't going to happen. It's a flawed teaching that sets people up for great disapointment.

Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches..........abide in me and I in you." If the branch does not abide in the vine it becomes withered and is good to be burned. That is my experience. I'm not becoming God......I am just me......the fallen sinner in need of God constantly. I only exibit a change in my life and being as long as I abide in him. If I cease.....I wither away and am just my old self again. I believe this is what is taught in the NT and is real to me. The "becoming God" thing has never been real to me and I don't believe it is what the NT teaches.

We need to do some Bible study. God did indeed say he would sanctify us completely as if it were a process, because of these verses:
"Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 "

Notice he said "He will surely" sanctify us completely. Another verse says he disciplines us for our good that we may share in his holiness. Discipline is definitely a process.

"For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. Hebrews 12:10 "

Being sanctified completely means we will become God in his sanctified nature, which means we will become him in his nature.

Witness Lee points out we are partakers of the divine nature, which is clearly stated in 2 Peter 1:4:
"by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 2 Peter 1:4 "

As for becoming life, being God in his life means that we will share his imperishable or incorruptible property. This equates to us being transformed into an imperishable body in the resurrection. We will become imperishable beings in the resurrection according to 1 Corinthians 15:50-57; thus, we will become God in his life.

"I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:50-57 "

Though we are partakers of the divine nature and life of God, we are not somewhat different from God because of 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 which says we should not proclaim to follow anyone but Christ. He is still our head shepherd. Because we can only worship the Head (Revelation 19:10), this makes us different from the Head because none of us are allowed to worship saints.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Being sanctified completely means we will become God in his sanctified nature, which means we will become him in his nature.

And training a monkey to talk means that it has become a human in nature. NOT.

This line of reasoning begins with a presumption that is not made in scripture — that man is incapable of righteousness and therefore must be replaced by God, thereby becoming God in some way, to be obedient to the command to be holy.

But throughout scripture God has said, both to the people of the OT and to those who followed and/or heard Jesus, to obey, be righteous, prefer justice (not American justice, but justice toward the widow, orphan, poor, alien), and so forth. When Jesus said it, he did not then do an aside to the closest disciples and say "and now watch them fail miserably until I die and resurrect and can get into them." It is true that this was a tremendous help in the process. But where is the replacement theology coming from?

Is this all about us becoming more than Adam was before the fall? Or restoring us to that place? If the former, then was Adam God in nature? Nothing convinces me that is so.

But a man who despised so much of the righteousness of God tells us that he, and we, become God in sanctification. I don't think so. (Actually, I don't think Lee would know what sanctification was if God appeared to him in broad daylight and spelled it out. He would reject it as a trick of Satan.) The scripture ways that we gain some of His nature, not that we become God (or god). We become more Christlike, not more Christ. We become more what we were made to be — humans, on the earth, exercising authority over the earth, and having God as our source of knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil.

Man can partake of the nature of God without becoming God. Lee's version is a claim not supported by scripture.

[Abounding]

This is also a teaching of the Catholic church doctrine.

[David]

Originally Posted by OBW

And training a monkey to talk means that it has become a human in nature. NOT.

Col 3.11 says Jesus is us! We are the branches and he is the vine; we can't do anything without him. If apart from him we can do nothing then it is evident our holiness does not come from ourselves; it comes from God. Look at it this way: you yourself said that righteousness from man was filthy rags. If EVERYTHING that came from man were filthy rags, then it is evident that righteousness as well as all the good things like sanctification is Jesus himself, proving that indeed our sanctification is God himself.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by David

Col 3.11 says Jesus is us! We are the branches and he is the vine; we can't do anything without him.

That is a simplistic error in grammar. You are asserting that because a metaphor of a vine and its branches exists that every aspect that can be milked from the metaphor must be true. Since a vine and its branches are one thing (entirely one thing) then you assert that this metaphor must mean that man is entirely the same thing as God.

But it is talking about a source of supply, not of identity. A branch receives its nutrition from the trunk (the vine). If you cut it off, it cannot do anything but die. This is classic over-application of a metaphor.

Neither Col 3:11 or any other verse that you want to bring out says that Jesus is us. Of course Lee said that it was "simply" so. And we all bought it, hook, line and sinker. But that is because we accepted that he was the ultimate authority and we did not even use our brains to see the error in his teaching.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Oregon

This particular teaching has been quite a bother to me.....even when I was attending the meetings of the LC. I hope I am not repeating earlier postings although the chance of that being so is probably quite high since this became the central theme of Witness Lee's view and thoughts concerning what he termed...."God's economy". Even though the words and something of the thought can be traced back to Athanasius, this does not at all put any kind of doctrinal authoritative stamp of approval on it....at least not to me. I've asked my brother....a full time participant in the LC this simple question. Why didn't the apostles use this kind of language, especially the apostle Paul, in any of their writings. Of course he had no answer but simply looked at me.

After having been in the local churches for most of my adult life......having pray read literally tens of thousands of hours......called "Oh Lord Jesus"(blessed be our wonderful Lord...not to discredit our Lord at all) umpteen times.....I believe that I have not become one wit more God in life and nature than I was when I first came into the LC at age 17. Peter says we partake of the divine nature. I believe this and feel that I certainly have. Paul says we behold and reflect.....I know this is true also....but becoming God in life and nature.......I have huge questions and doubts about this. My personal experience is this When I stop beholding......I stop reflecting. When I don't partake of the divine nature.....I certainly don't manifest it in my own life.

To me.....it's more like ......the light in the kitchen is either on or off. It didn't slowly become on. Paul said ...."walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh". That is my life and I have no doubt it is yours also. If I walk in the Spirit then I am partaking of the divine nature and I can reflect the one I am beholding. If I don't......I will fulfill the lust of the flesh. Now where in this scenario did I become God in life and nature. I simply participated in the life and nature of another. When I ceased to participate....I was just my fallen self again. How did I become God in life and nature. I suppose for whatever the length of time I walked in the Spirit I experinced God as my life and nature.......I can certainly believe this and see no conflict with what is presented in the writings of the apostles. "Becoming God" though.......that's a whole different story. Thoughts anyone?

Lately, one thought keeps coming to me regarding the teaching of "Man becoming God." How can they exert so much energy trying to convince people that they are turning into God, when they have so much trouble just being men?

When all is said and done, the only thing that we are to be concerned with is knowing Him. This was Paul's word to the Philippians at a time when he thought he may well have been sitting on death row.

Being able to dissect and fully know all the ins and outs of the "Triune God"? I don't think so. There is no verbiage in the Bible requiring us to nail a doctrine of the Trinity, and there is no verbiage telling us that we are turning into God.

I believe that Witness Lee, and now his lieutenants, are too obsessed with becoming "giants in the industry." They obsess with being the authority on this, and the authority on that. If they would be more concerned with actually knowing the Lord Jesus, maybe they wouldn't find themselves in court so much fighting their brothers.

Paul himself (one of the supposed "apostles for the age") said that knowing all mysteries means nothing if you don't have love. Yet, LSM is anxious to let everybody know that they have nailed all the mysteries concerning the Triune God, and the ultimate anatomical details of how He is dealing with man. They have misaimed, and missed the mark. That is the definition of sin.

Roger

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Roger

Lately, one thought keeps coming to me regarding the teaching of "Man becoming God." How can they exert so much energy trying to convince people that they are turning into God, when they have so much trouble just being men?

How true! As I was leaving the LC's, the singlemost troublesome matter on my heart (though there were many) was that we who have given our lives to the recovery, which I like to call "the program," don't know how to treat one another. How can we be men if we can't treat others as men. As I thought at that time, "this program produces bullies out of beloved brothers." I watched that happen on all levels, and could only conclude that this disease was systemic to the teachings of exclusivity.

The Bible is filled with healthy admonitions on how we should relate one to another. We should love our neighbor as ourself. We should even love our enemies. How much more the household of the faith. Yet the prominent "god-men," so highly esteemed among the LC's, can't even treat their own with respect. Only they could twist I Cor 6 into saying that we MUST take our brothers to court if we have "no other recourse."

Such is the fruit of the "high peak teachings." Something portrayed as the "peak" of all Christian theology, something which took 2,000 years of "recovery" to fully "consummate," something supposedly lost for all church history since the days of Athanasius, something which the initial apostles "wanted" to say but had not the opportunity or the maturity, something which was supposed to revolutionize our Christian walk and bring about the revival to end all revivals ... ends with quarantines and lawsuits over ones teaching "differently" from the "minister of the age."