God's Eternal Purpose

[zeek]

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

[OBW]

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

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

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

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

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

Etc. Etc.

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

And so on. Obedience is better than sacrifice.

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

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

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

[zeek]

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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

Local Church song from the 70s:

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

"Pray His Word and call His name."

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

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

[OBW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

It's a hoot.

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

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

And Lee followed in the same mistake they made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

From Wikipedia:

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

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

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

[awareness]

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

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

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

But what about that purpose being The Building?

Is that truth, fact, in existence right now?

Was Lee right?

[HERn]

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

[UntoHim]

Hymn 971

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zeek]

Exhibit A

Hymn 971

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

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

[zeek]

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

[UntoHim]

Thanks zeek, but this may be the first (and probably last) time anyone is going to use the word great when mentioning my mind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks zeek, but this may be the first (and probably last) time anyone is going to use the word great when mentioning my mind.

No ... but it's qualified ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Local Church song from the 70s:

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

"Pray His Word and call His name."

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

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

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

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

It's a hoot.

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

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

And Lee followed in the same mistake they made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

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

From Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

[aron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by OBW

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

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

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

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

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[InChristAlone]

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

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

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

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

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

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

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

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

We sang that song all the time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

We sang that song all the time.

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

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

It was just a typo. I meant GEP.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

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

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

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

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

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

That's the same as LRC.

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

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

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

Same as LRC.

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

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

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

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

Same for LRC and many other evangelicals.

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

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

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

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

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

I see no incompatibility with LRC there.

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

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

OK

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

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

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

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

LRC did not teach asceticism.

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

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

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

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

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

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

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

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

Then... Hallelujah, praise the Lord! I didn't know that WL read the Church fathers.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

But let's judge the tree by its fruit and look at the results/outcome of WL's and Eastern Orthodox theosis practices. Compare Witness Lee with another old man, Elder Tadej, a Serbian Orthodox monk.

WL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4W3mMTuJ1k

Elder Tadej: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ficmQ3anAyM

To me, WL looks like a lecturer, scholar, and a man of theoretic and hypothetical knowledge. While Father Tadej looks like a true spiritual guide, advanced on his way to theosis.

When WL, the founder of the LRC, says "God is love", it's just words. When that humble Serbian monk says the same phrase, he means it because his words are based on his spiritual experience. And that's the difference.

PS One more Orthodox monk, Fr. Lazarus ELAnthony, a humble hermit, who came from Australia to live in St. Anthony's Monastery in the deserts of the Red Sea, Egypt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSm120gFlQ

PPS Here is not a monk, but an ordinary Orthodox priest in America, Fr. Seraphim Cardoza, who speaks about the goal of Christianity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gdB24gyu_M (You may start from 15:45)

I find Fr. Seraphim Cardoza more spiritual than WL and the blended brothers all together. And that's the result of two practices, the ancient Orthodox and modern LRC's.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

We sang that song all the time.

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

Verse 6:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

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

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

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

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

No that isn't what I'm saying. Sure the mistakes look funny sometimes, especially when they happen to other people. Like theology, science has made huge blunders along the way. Shall we abandon science because of the errors? Shall we abandon theology? Scientists learn from their mistakes and carry on. That's what I'm trying to do.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Then... Hallelujah, praise the Lord! I didn't know that WL read the Church fathers.

He did and we were aware of the similarities when I was in the movement thirty years ago.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

The LRC doesn't have apostolic succession. It's not a God-established and ordained church but a man-made church, the church of Witness Lee.

Right. So you trace the authority of your institution back to the founder. But, then so have the Roman Catholics and it hasn't kept them free of world historic blunders. How do you view that? Does your church have a monopoly on GEP?

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

How does that work? Do you believe in transubstantiation?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

Cognitive dissonance much?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

When I heard the FTTA trainer tell us "don't waste your time" with the poor, the widows and orphans, I was further troubled. Why are we ignoring one another? When I read the Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, and saw Lee characterize the supposed "rebels" in terms that would make a sailor blush, I was bothered. Why are we judging one another?

The problem is that the general points of LC doctrine are not wrong, per se, for the most part. It's the emphasis and attitude that is wrong.

Doesn't God want to produce a group of people who express his life and nature?
Yes, but...
And isn't that accomplished by our experiencing the Spirit?
Yes, but...
And don't we need to separate ourselves from corrupting elements, worldly and religious, to reach this goal?
True, but...
And don't we need to be one?
Uh-huh, but...
And doesn't the New Testament show a pattern of one church per city?
It does, but....

The Bible also says that those who are last shall be first. It also says we should humble ourselves to serve the least, the weakest, the ones that can never pay us back. It also says that as soon as we think we are something we are nothing. The LC got some big vision things right generally, but in pursuit of those totally missed the little essentials that make the big vision possible and even meaningful. God glorifies us after we humble ourselves. That's always the principle. The LC skipped the humble ourselves part and went straight to being glorified.

Time after time the LC misses the main point of a Scripture passage to focus on their big vision or economy emphasis. Take the story of Jesus washing the disciples' feet. It is about humbling ourselves, putting ourselves last, as Christ did, to serve others. Lee made it about washing people with the Spirit who were spiritually dusty from the world. Not wrong, just the wrong emphasis at the expense of the crucial point. They do this time and again.

And humility is about serving others, not achieving some kind of idealized selflessness. LC self-denial is never about humbling ourselves for the sake of others; it's always for the sake of the vision. I guess if you want to sum up the LC error in one sentence, you could use that one. They aren't about relationships, they're about processes. They aren't about people, they're about doctrines.

[HERn]

Re: LSMs use of scripture I took an online LSM training course where I learned that all of scripture is inspired, but not all of scripture is God's word (or something very close to that). Based on this approach Lee was able to reject the book of James and some of the Psalms (I think).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

No that isn't what I'm saying. Sure the mistakes look funny sometimes, especially when they happen to other people. Like theology, science has made huge blunders along the way. Shall we abandon science because of the errors? Shall we abandon theology? Scientists learn from their mistakes and carry on. That's what I'm trying to do.

Then I would advise staying away from movements, such as Witness Lee's, that are contrived and built from a piecemeal Bible.

Piecemealing the Bible has a long history of misleading the faithful, as well as fleecing the sheep. William Miller, G.H. Pember, James Ussher, Witness Lee, examples I provided, are just a few examples.

And yes Science has made blunders, but they are always trying and seeking to correct their wrongs. They don't seek to hold to their failures. They leave the failure behind. Like you say: "Scientists learn from their mistakes and carry on."

But this practice of piecemealing the Bible continues on and on, producing failures again and again. There's no learning by this mistake. If it's true when you say that: "That's what I'm trying to do." Then stay away from those that contrive systems that are based upon piecemealing the Bible.

I'd say that it is the lack of scientific thinking that's keeping development of systems based upon piecemealing the Bible alive and well ... and the faithful misled again and again.

It's only insanity that keeps us (the royal us) trying the same thing - piecemealing the Bible - over and over again, and expecting a different outcome.

And Witness Lee's GEP was based upon piecemealing the Bible.

To be honest, and personal, I fell for it. After the dead Southern Baptist church (my cradle religion) Lee's GEP was dazzling. At first it made my heart swim, and my mind glassy-eyed. And I liked how he grabbed verses from here and there to make it. I thought it was ingenious.

But I was young and foolish back then, just out on my own, seeking a Utopian ideal.

And there was lot's of love in those church days. It was the love the cinched the deal for me. But as I look back, it was the result of Lee's Bible piecemealing that took over the love, and killed it. Then a cold system was developed.

The rest is history ... thankfully.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

And yes Science has made blunders, but they are always trying and seeking to correct their wrongs. They don't seek to hold to their failures. They leave the failure behind.

Except for politically-correct blunders. Like global warming, evolution and homosexuality being normal. These they tend to cling to to a fault.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. So you trace the authority of your institution back to the founder. But, then so have the Roman Catholics and it hasn't kept them free of world historic blunders. How do you view that? Does your church have a monopoly on GEP?

God's Eternal Purpose is one for all, isn't it? Nobody can claim a monopoly on GEP but God.

The Orthodox Church shares a common history with Western Christianity for roughly the first 1,000 years of the Christian experience. However, during the Middle Ages, developments in the West led the Latin Church to drift away from the Church in the East. We believe that although the Church of Christ exists fully or perfectly in one communion alone, it may be found imperfectly or by participation in others ‑ inasmuch as they, too, possess certain gifts or endowments that belong by right to the one Church.

As for the story of the Great Schism, i.e. how the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches split, you may check out this article: Patriarchates, Bishops, and Popes - Is the Catholic Church the direct line from Peter?

http://wellthoughtoutlife.blogspot.r...-popes-is.html

How does that work? Do you believe in transubstantiation?

The EO teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist but they do not attempt to explain how it happens - it is a Mystery. We do not use scholastic philosophical words such as "transubstantiation" in an attempt to define this great Mystery. The Eucharist (literally “thanksgiving”) is the Mystery in which the bread and wine of offering are changed by the Holy Spirit into the true Body and true Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

From "The Catechism of St. Philaret": "In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord."

From Yahoo answers:

Q.: Do Orthodox Christians believe in transubstantiation?

Answer: Yes/no.

We believe in metaousiosis, which is parsed as exact Greek for "transubstantiation" (both mean "change of substance/essence"). The reason why we reject "transubstantiation" is because the word has a complex philosophical rationalization behind it, whereas the Orthodox have always strongly rejected rationalization. All that metaousiosis teaches is that the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine somehow into the body and blood of Christ, but the manner, means, and meaning are a mystery. That is, we don't try to explain the sacrament, and some Orthodox believe even metaousiosis goes too far in explanation.

PS The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church

http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/20...thodox-church/

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

He did and we were aware of the similarities when I was in the movement thirty years ago.

Do you know what kind of Church fathers did WL read? Latin? Eastern? What books did he read? In English or Chinese? I might be wrong, but I believe it was close to impossible for him to get a book on the Church fathers' faith that time.

BTW, since you were aware of the similarities, what Church fathers did you read? Did you find them useful? Can you recommend me any books?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

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

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

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

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

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

Well said, brother Awareness!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Except for politically-correct blunders. Like global warming, evolution and homosexuality being normal. These they tend to cling to to a fault.

As true as your general statement may be, at the same time, there may actually be something to global warming. But the more important aspect of it may be whether man actually has any material part in the process. It would seem that the earth has warmed and cooled to some degree in the past — both recently and in ancient history.

Funny thing is that it was as recent as the 80s (I believe) that there was a significant concern that the earth was going into a phase of global cooling.

Makes you wonder why we didn't hear much about it. Maybe it was because no one could pin it on the capitalist pigs that rape the earth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Except for politically-correct blunders. Like global warming, evolution and homosexuality being normal. These they tend to cling to to a fault.

Nothing is perfect. But I sure enjoy the internet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

We believe in metaousiosis, which is parsed as exact Greek for "transubstantiation" (both mean "change of substance/essence"). The reason why we reject "transubstantiation" is because the word has a complex philosophical rationalization behind it, whereas the Orthodox have always strongly rejected rationalization.

That's because the claim that the bread and wine actually in reality become the essence of Christ can only be believed by abandoning all reason and rationality. It's corny as all get-out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

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

Hymn book Supplement #1325

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LC got some big vision things right generally, but in pursuit of those totally missed the little essentials that make the big vision possible and even meaningful. God glorifies us after we humble ourselves. That's always the principle. The LC skipped the humble ourselves part and went straight to being glorified.

I like this.

It speaks to the heart of most members. We knew we had lots of things right, and yet we knew that there was something seriously wrong with us. If not, why was there so little fruit? Why did we work so hard, yet enjoy so little blessing? Why did so many precious saints up and leave like overnight?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Do you know what kind of Church fathers did WL read? Latin? Eastern? What books did he read? In English or Chinese? I might be wrong, but I believe it was close to impossible for him to get a book on the Church fathers' faith that time.

BTW, since you were aware of the similarities, what Church fathers did you read? Did you find them useful? Can you recommend me any books?

Lee loved Athanasius, because of his statement about "make man God."

Lee also had "helpers" who did much of his reading and research for him.

Here is an interesting story I just heard. After Lee died, LSM took groups of saints into his house during the trainings to see how the "MOTA" lived. During one such tour, a friend of mine happened to notice that some book(s) which were prominent in Lee's library were by an author noted to be heretical. The brother pointed this out to the LSM docent, who informed others, who quickly removed the book(s). He somewhat remembered that the book(s) was by Emanuel Swedenborg.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

As true as your general statement may be, at the same time, there may actually be something to global warming. But the more important aspect of it may be whether man actually has any material part in the process. It would seem that the earth has warmed and cooled to some degree in the past — both recently and in ancient history.

Funny thing is that it was as recent as the 80s (I believe) that there was a significant concern that the earth was going into a phase of global cooling.

During my high school and college days, I was constantly shown pictures of frozen wooly mammoths, and warned of the coming ice age. They used the identical reasoning as for today's global warming scares: fossil fuels, green house gases, and gas-guzzling cars. The last ice age was only 10K years hence, and the next one was right around the corner. That all changed with "Ozone AL" Gore, who invented the internet.

After the 90's, global warming was all the rage. Last year's brutal winter with its "polar vortex" kind of shut those folks up, so now we have the more all-inclusive "climate change." Growing up in Cleveland, Ohio we had climate change a couple times a day. Don't need a scientist to tell me about that. Every day we would say, "if you don't like the weather, just wait a minute."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's because the claim that the bread and wine actually in reality become the essence of Christ can only be believed by abandoning all reason and rationality. It's corny as all get-out.

Zwingli rebutted both Luther (promoting consubstantiation) and Rome (promoting transubstantiation) with the simple question, "when John the Baptist saw Jesus, and said 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,' how many legs did he see?" (John 1.29)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I like this.

It speaks to the heart of most members. We knew we had lots of things right, and yet we knew that there was something seriously wrong with us. If not, why was there so little fruit? Why did we work so hard, yet enjoy so little blessing? Why did so many precious saints up and leave like overnight?

That's because the love I mentioned cinched the deal for me was missing.

By the time I was winding down in the local church it had turned into a method. We were told to form groups, 6 to 11. The purpose of the groups were to latch onto any new one, especially during the Friday night love feast, and concentrate on capturing them. It was as free of love as it was full of fanaticism. When I saw it in practice it not only turned the new one off, it turned me off too.

In the end, I eventually discovered, the love in the local church turned out to be this kind of love:

Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Do you know what kind of Church fathers did WL read? Latin? Eastern? What books did he read? In English or Chinese? I might be wrong, but I believe it was close to impossible for him to get a book on the Church fathers' faith that time.

BTW, since you were aware of the similarities, what Church fathers did you read? Did you find them useful? Can you recommend me any books?

Witness Lee cited several of the apostolic fathers usually with respect to how they confirmed his theology. It must be said that Lee denied that he had a theology. In fact he denied that he even had an interpretation of the Bible. He would frequently remind us that he always preached nothing but the pure word of God. Further, he did not receive his theology from the church fathers or anybody else on God's green earth. No. It was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God. But, from time to time, when he was in a serious reflective mood, he would tell us about how his teaching was in harmony with the ancient theologians. For example, Ignatius used the term "economy of God." Of course, so did Paul.

I left the LRC 28 years ago, so it's a bit difficult for me to name every book I read of the apostolic fathers. Mostly I read secondary sources. In general, the fathers were interpreting Jesus in terms of Greek philosophy and Neoplatonism. Thus, theology was born. Writing the New Testament in Greek itself had a Hellenizing effect on Christianity. This is clearly illustrated by the representation of Christ as the Logos in John 1:1. Christianity became a synthesis of Jewish and pagan ideas. Nee and Lee were theologically minded individuals very much on the Greek side. This is evident in books like "The All-Inclusive Christ" in which can be seen the influence of Plato's "Realm of Ideas." To Plato every actual thing is a shadow of the ultimate thing which exists in the realm of ideas. For Nee and Lee, every positive existing thing is a shadow of Christ.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's because the claim that the bread and wine actually in reality become the essence of Christ can only be believed by abandoning all reason and rationality. It's corny as all get-out.

It's the same mystery like baptism. Nothing happens visibly, in our material world. We don't see the Holy Spirit, light or smoke. We don't hear a thunderstorm. Nevertheless, we believe that something happens there, mysteriously and spiritually.

It may look weird for a rational mind, but we keep the Lord's commandment:

John 6:53-54

"Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."

First Christians did the same thing. Even the apostle Paul mentioned it:

1 Corinthians 11:29-30: "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

Hebrews 10:29: "How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee loved Athanasius, because of his statement about "make man God."

Lee also had "helpers" who did much of his reading and research for him.

Here is an interesting story I just heard. After Lee died, LSM took groups of saints into his house during the trainings to see how the "MOTA" lived. During one such tour, a friend of mine happened to notice that some book(s) which were prominent in Lee's library were by an author noted to be heretical. The brother pointed this out to the LSM docent, who informed others, who quickly removed the book(s). He somewhat remembered that the book(s) was by Emanuel Swedenborg.

Thank you brother Ohio. To say the truth, when I just started attending the LRC, I also noticed some similarities, especially that of divinization. I thought, "They have this and we have this. They believe in this and we believe in the same". That time I was not interested in religion, so I didn't care about details.

BTW, there were quite a number of the early Church Fathers who wrote about theosis: Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-190), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395), Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430), Maximus the Confessor, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and of course, Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373).

Wikipedia shares their quotes on divinization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

For example, Irenaeus wrote:

"The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."

"'For we cast blame upon [God], because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High."

"For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God."

I trust Irenaeus and other Church Fathers' doctrine on theosis because of three reasons:

1 They were among first Christians who kept the tradition and were closer to Christ, Apostles, and the inner knowledge of Christian faith. For example, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp (AD 69– 155-160's) who was a disciple of the apostle John. So Irenaeus might know what was not included in the Gospels.

2 Theosis is not one man's idea. Lee could be wrong. A certain Church Father could be mistaken. But there were several Church Fathers from different localities who shared the same teaching. That's why it seems trustworthy for me. Probably, the Church Fathers got their knowledge from different apostles, but their views and teachings on theosis were similar.

3 It seems to be logical. Man, according to the Bible, is 'made in the image and likeness of God.' After Adam's fall, the image and likeness were corrupted. God sent His Son to redeem us, i.e. restore His image in each of us (which is theosis). So it's a logical step, God's plan and purpose of our life: the attainment of likeness of God, union with God or reconciliation with God.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee cited several of the apostolic fathers usually with respect to how they confirmed his theology. It must be said that Lee denied that he had a theology. In fact he denied that he even had an interpretation of the Bible. He would frequently remind us that he always preached nothing but the pure word of God. Further, he did not receive his theology from the church fathers or anybody else on God's green earth. No. It was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God. But, from time to time, when he was in a serious reflective mood, he would tell us about how his teaching was in harmony with the ancient theologians. For example, Ignatius used the term "economy of God." Of course, so did Paul.

Thank you Zeek. That was a revelation to me.

It seems that WL was a really well-read man, not only in the Church Fathers but also in Swedenborg. I'd call him a man of knowledge. But at the same time I don't mistaken knowledge for wisdom. And “the highest form of wisdom is kindness”.

You know, I don't really understand Witness Lee. If his knowledge was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God, why did he need to read all those authors? If I had this "authentic conversation" with God, then all other authors and their books would pale into insignificance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's because the love I mentioned cinched the deal for me was missing.

By the time I was winding down in the local church it had turned into a method. We were told to form groups, 6 to 11. The purpose of the groups were to latch onto any new one, especially during the Friday night love feast, and concentrate on capturing them. It was as free of love as it was full of fanaticism. When I saw it in practice it not only turned the new one off, it turned me off too.

In the end, I eventually discovered, the love in the local church turned out to be this kind of love:

Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

When I was dramatically saved, The Lord gave me 3 gifts -- love for Him, love for His word, and love for His people. When I first entered the LC, I found the same three loves in others. By the time I left, all three were almost gone.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hymn book Supplement #1325

Verse 6:

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

"the product"... Freudian slip, no? I'm sure the hymn-writer Bill Freeman got this term from Lee's messages. The "glorified church", dangled in front of the believers to draw them into this supposedly special sect, was a product, marketed and sold by the merchandiser of the age, Mr. Witness Lee... a product to be packaged and sold to the simple, trusting rubes who gathered eagerly around. And yes I was one, too; buying the books and booklets and cassette tapes and CDs, and pushing them on my family, and neighbors, and people at work, and knocking on doors and hawking them on the street. Like Bill Freeman, I was pushing Lee's products, and thinking that this was working out God's eternal purpose.

So why was Lee's product glorified, and that of Podunk Community Church rejected? I think we got taken by a confidence game, a con job. And the reason Lee was so convincing was because he'd convinced himself, and was thereby able to live with the Daystar money-laundering fiasco, his reprobate sons running his sundry companies, and the various intrigues, purges, storms and rebellions that followed, because he, Lee, was crucial to God's eternal purpose of building the church. To Lee, the ends justified the means, and all the broken and confused saints ejected from his church-building system were just collateral damage.

All the stuff in between, to Lee, was the "messy kitchen", to be overlooked and forgiven because we were building the glorious church. And yet the messy kitchen of "Christianity" was constantly dragged out onto the podium and waved in front of the "saints"! All of this seems like infantile, me-first subjectivity, covered with a veneer of spiritual and religious terminology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Thank you brother Ohio. To say the truth, when I just started attending the LRC, I also noticed some similarities, especially that of divinization. I thought, "They have this and we have this. They believe in this and we believe in the same".

The problem I have with divination / deification is that the Bible never says it, and had ample opportunity to do so.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It's the same mystery like baptism. Nothing happens visibly, in our material world. We don't see the Holy Spirit, light or smoke. We don't hear a thunderstorm. Nevertheless, we believe that something happens there, mysteriously and spiritually.

That the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus is true in the imagination only. It's not literal. That should be true for any rational thinker. Do we have to embrace such fantasies to be a Christian? ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Thank you Zeek. That was a revelation to me.

It seems that WL was a really well-read man, not only in the Church Fathers but also in Swedenborg. I'd call him a man of knowledge. But at the same time I don't mistaken knowledge for wisdom. And “the highest form of wisdom is kindness”.

You know, I don't really understand Witness Lee. If his knowledge was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God, why did he need to read all those authors? If I had this "authentic conversation" with God, then all other authors and their books would pale into insignificance.

Maybe God spoke to him through the Bible and the other authors he read. Don't the EO bishops, priests and mystics read?

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe God spoke to him through the Bible and the other authors he read. Don't the EO bishops, priests and mystics read?

I assume you're being sarcastic here. The Fathers not only read but they were good scholars and cited their sources. Unlike Lee.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

For example, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp (AD 69– 155-160's) who was a disciple of the apostle John. So Irenaeus might know what was not included in the Gospels.

But he was still limited to the knowledge of his day, and could say something crazy, like this:

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four
corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four
gospels."

Originally Posted by ICA

2 Theosis is not one man's idea. Lee could be wrong. A certain Church Father could be mistaken. But there were several Church Fathers from different localities who shared the same teaching. That's why it seems trustworthy for me. Probably, the Church Fathers got their knowledge from different apostles, but their views and teachings on theosis were similar.

But if we are sticking to Lee and his conception of GEP I don't think the word "Theosis" fits.

I never heard him use the term. And when I was in, The Shouters never once used the term.

But I left early, and Lee said many things since.

Does anyone else out here ever remember Lee using the term theosis?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

That the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus is true in the imagination only. It's not literal. That should be true for any rational thinker. Do we have to embrace such fantasies to be a Christian? ...

It depends on how you take John 6:53-54. First Christians took these verses literally. So do we Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Most of my atheist friends are rational thinkers. They don't believe in fantasies like soul, angels, and life after death.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe God spoke to him through the Bible and the other authors he read. Don't the EO bishops, priests and mystics read?

Weren't it you who said:

Originally Posted by zeek

He would frequently remind us that he always preached nothing but the pure word of God. Further, he did not receive his theology from the church fathers or anybody else on God's green earth. No. It was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God.

The EO bishops, priests, and mystics read, but they didn't claim that they received all their knowledge only from the Spirit and the Word of God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It depends on how you take John 6:53-54. First Christians took these verses literally. So do we Eastern Orthodox Christians.

But it's only bread and wine. It's not the flesh and blood of Jesus.

But it is why the pagans called early Christians cannibals and vampires.

But maybe I can't know such things. Maybe the EO bread and wine is the real flesh and blood of Jesus but everyone else's bread and wine is just imaginary.

What do I know?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

But he was still limited to the knowledge of his day, and could say something crazy, like this:

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four
corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four
gospels."

It was written in the 2nd century for people who lived in the 2nd century. And I believe they did not find it crazy.

BTW, the Church Fathers could be errant in their teachings. Nobody takes their books for absolute. But the test is simple:

1) Is it principal, important and related to the Faith?
2) Is it according to the Bible?
3) What did other Church Fathers write on the same topic?

I don't know how ancient Christians took that phrase, but for me, it doesn't reveal any principal information about the Christian Faith. So I (who live in 2014) don't find that phrase important. St Irenaeus is worth reading but not so that to know about four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe.

Originally Posted by awareness

But if we are sticking to Lee and his conception of GEP I don't think the word "Theosis" fits.

I never heard him use the term. And when I was in, The Shouters never once used the term.

But I left early, and Lee said many things since.

Does anyone else out here ever remember Lee using the term theosis?

I think one of the brothers can explain.

Originally Posted by zeek

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

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

But it's only bread and wine. It's not the flesh and blood of Jesus.

But it is why the pagans called early Christians cannibals and vampires.

But maybe I can't know such things. Maybe the EO bread and wine is the real flesh and blood of Jesus but everyone else's bread and wine is just imaginary.

What do I know?

How do you understand and explain Christ's words then? "He took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat this is My Body, then He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying: Drink from it all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28) The Apostle Paul repeats the same words in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.

It's impossible to explain Christ's words with a scientific approach. Therefore, it's a mystery.

I found an interesting article on a Coptic Orthodox website:

"There is no delineation or actual words from the Lord Jesus Christ, which speak as to how the change occurs. Therefore, the Coptic Orthodox considered the change of the "bread and wine" as a MYSTERY. We do not contemplate on the existence of red blood cells, white blood cells or platelets. We do not contemplate on its transubstantiation. It is simply a MYSTERY. We accept this as it is.

There are so many very important biblical verses about the Holy Communion that allude to its MYSTERY.
"He who eats My Flesh, and drinks My Body abides in Me, and I in him" (John 6:56). By receiving this Sacrament "we become members of His Body, of His Flesh and of His Bones" (Ephesians 5:30) also we become partakers of the Divine Nature (Peter 1:4).

It gives us eternal life, "Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day. He who eats this Bread will live forever" (John 6:54,58).

It grants us growth in the Spirit, holiness and life in the Lord Jesus Christ as He said, "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink is indeed. As the living Father sent me, and I live in Him because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me" (John 6:55,57).

Just like when we eat substantial food we nourish our bodies making them strong and healthy; likewise when we eat the Holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ we strengthen our souls and God’s grace grows continuously in us.

It gives remedy to the soul, body, and spirit, as we say in the Offertory Mystery: "That they (Holy Body and Precious Blood) may become to us all for participation and healing and salvation for our souls, bodies, and our spirits."

The actual words of the Lord Jesus Christ concerning the reality of the His Body and Blood are VERY CLEAR. They need no further explanation and the apostles understood this. The Jews at the time argued among themselves: "The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves saying 'How can this Man give us His flesh to eat? From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then the Lord Jesus Christ said to the 12, 'Do you also want to go away?" (John 6:52,66,67)

It is worth noting that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted this Holy Sacrament and passed it on to His disciples during the last hour of His life. Therefore, we cannot accept the interpretation that He was speaking metaphorically to mean "in remembrance."

St. Paul tells us that this sacrament implied "sharing in the body of Jesus Christ." "I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless; is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" (I Corinthians 10:15-16)"

http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=60&catid=81

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Does anyone else out here ever remember Lee using the term theosis?

Sure, it was all about GBMTMMGILANBNITGH. We heard it over and over. Hundreds of times, after the chaos of the Rebellions/Quarantines, which followed the endless winds and waves of the New Way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It depends on how you take John 6:53-54. First Christians took these verses literally.

We should take these verses both literally and spiritually.

The explanation for how to "take" these verses is in John 6.63.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

How do you understand and explain Christ's words then? "He took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat this is My Body, then He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying: Drink from it all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28) The Apostle Paul repeats the same words in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.

The Lord explains His own words. The cup is His blood of the New Covenant, shed for the remission of sins.

When was His blood shed? That same day on the cross. The blood shed on Calvary's cross was for the remission of our sins. The cup we drink is a remembrance of that shed blood, since He said "Do this in remembrance of Me."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It's impossible to explain Christ's words with a scientific approach. Therefore, it's a mystery.

If it's a mystery then we don't and can't know what's going on in the bread and wine, if anything.

So we're forced to imagine it.

Just like we imagine GEP.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We should take these verses both literally and spiritually.

The explanation for how to "take" these verses is in John 6.63.

Very good point bro Ohio. The bread and wine the disciples were eating with Jesus was just ordinary bread and wine.

Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We should take these verses both literally and spiritually.

The explanation for how to "take" these verses is in John 6.63.

Then you are in your own trap because you think that the Lord speaks of His own flesh, asking His disciples to eat it, but at the same time He finds that His flesh counts for nothing. Do you find it logical?

"The flesh" that Christ speaks of in John 6:63, is flesh in the sense of our lustful, sinful human nature. The spirit therefore is the life-giving Grace; which is consistently juxtaposed against "the flesh" throughout the Biblical text.

Some people become confused by what Lord Jesus Christ said after the disciples complained. He said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (Jn 6:63). They mistakenly think that this is proof that Lord Jesus Christ is saying that He only means that the disciples will eat His Flesh and drink His Blood spiritually and not literally. But it is illogical that the Lord would say that His Flesh “profits nothing” (useless) after saying that it gives life (v 53). Rather, Lord Jesus Christ is not talking about His Flesh, but about their flesh. He is telling the unbelieving disciples that they cannot grasp or come to His blessed teaching on the Eucharist by their senses or their flesh which “profits nothing” for this purpose, but only through faith or Spirit.

Source: http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lec...acrament12.pdf

Christ adds, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are life" (John 6:63). By this remark Christ does not ask that His words about the Bread of Life be understood in any "metaphorical" meaning. "There are some of you that believe not, He added immediately" (John 6:64). By these words the Saviour Himself indicates that His words are difficult for faith: How is it that believers will eat His Body and drink His Blood? But He confirms that He speaks of His actual Body. His words concerning His Body and Blood are "spirit and life."
They testify that a) he who partakes of them will have eternal life, and will be resurrected for the Kingdom of glory in the last day; and b) that he who partakes of them will enter into the most intimate communion with Christ. His words speak not of life in the flesh, but of life in the Spirit.

http://www.stjohntherussian.com/orth...eucharist.html

They had an interesting podcast on the Ancient Faith Radio about John 6:63:

John 6:63 And The Eucharist
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts..._the_eucharist

John 6:63 And The Eucharist - Part 2
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts...arist_-_part_2

...Many non—sacramental Christian believers use is to debunk the ancient apostolic teaching that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the literal body and blood of Christ. Again, they take Jesus to say here that there is no real importance to his flesh. It is his words alone, his teachings, that are spiritual and therefore life—giving. There are many problems with this interpretation however.

First of all, having gone now through the chapter and examined the verse’s context, I think it is imminently clear how we should understand it. When Jesus says that the flesh profits nothing, he is speaking clearly to that total preoccupation with temporal, earthly needs that the Jews who followed him to Capernaum demonstrated. These people were looking for breakfast. They saw Jesus as an everlasting meal ticket. One who could satisfy their physical needs. And everything he said to them about who he is and what he comes to offer, they heard in the context of those fleshly desires. The Lord had attempted to elevate their hearts by speaking of heavenly, spiritual things. Which is the second flaw in the interpretation of those who take this verse as debunking the Real Presence.

Verse sixty-three’s “spiritual, life—giving words that I speak” include all these words that Jesus just spoke about eating his body and drinking his blood. And in those spiritual words, Jesus certainly isn’t saying that his flesh profits nothing. He says it profits eternal life. Could we expect Jesus to ever say that his flesh is unprofitable? The most glorious truth in the universe is that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)

I’m coming to think that the real resistance to the doctrine of the Real Presence is grounded in the rather impoverished view of the Incarnation widely embraced by western Christian churches. For the West, Christ comes in the flesh just to provide a body for the receiving of God’s wrath upon sinners. But the ancient Church in the Christian East knows that the purpose of Christ’s Incarnation is to join humanness to divinity. He comes to restore us to union with God on every level of our human existence: the physical as well as the spiritual.

Jesus Christ is not a rational philosophy. The living faith he brings to us is much more than spiritual principles we are to hear and apply to our lives. It is rather, the joining of our beings with his. This is the truth that fundamentally divides Christians who believe in the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, and those who don’t. It is only their rational, platonic mindset which makes John 6:63 anti—Eucharistic verse in the minds of Western believers.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts...arist_-_part_2

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

If it's a mystery then we don't and can't know what's going on in the bread and wine, if anything.

So we're forced to imagine it.

Just like we imagine GEP.

Some people think that we Christians imagine God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Some people think that we Christians imagine God.

It is our imagination that we use to form conceptions of God. It can't be avoided.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Then you are in your own trap because you think that the Lord speaks of His own flesh, asking His disciples to eat it, but at the same time He finds that His flesh counts for nothing. Do you find it logical?

"The flesh" that Christ speaks of in John 6:63, is flesh in the sense of our lustful, sinful human nature. The spirit therefore is the life-giving Grace; which is consistently juxtaposed against "the flesh" throughout the Biblical text.

Some people become confused by what Lord Jesus Christ said after the disciples complained. He said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (Jn 6:63). They mistakenly think that this is proof that Lord Jesus Christ is saying that He only means that the disciples will eat His Flesh and drink His Blood spiritually and not literally. But it is illogical that the Lord would say that His Flesh “profits nothing” (useless) after saying that it gives life (v 53). Rather, Lord Jesus Christ is not talking about His Flesh, but about their flesh. He is telling the unbelieving disciples that they cannot grasp or come to His blessed teaching on the Eucharist by their senses or their flesh which “profits nothing” for this purpose, but only through faith or Spirit.

There is no trap ICA.

I do not find the Lord's words here to be illogical. They are spiritual rather, and the natural mind cannot know them. I Cor 2.14

The flesh in John 6.63 is not our sinful flesh, but our Lord's own flesh which is not sinful. John 1.14 says that the "Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us." His flesh has no sin, rather it was a tabernacle for the Word of God as He walked on earth. He was in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Rom 8.3

John 6.63 is our Lord's explanation to His disciples concerning their dilemma and confusion in 6.60-62. I am not mistaken to think this way as you assume, neither am I confused, and neither is my understanding illogical as you say.

What the Lord spoke requires faith, as He told the disciples in 6.64. Unfortunately some of the disciples were stumbled at this word and no longer walked with the Lord. 6.66-67

Concerning what the Lord was speaking to them about eating Him in John 6.57, His tabernacle in the flesh of His earthly body profited them nothing. John 6.63 Without a spirit of faith, as displayed by Peter in 6.68, they mistakenly thought that Jesus needed to be eaten like a roasted lamb, and they just could not understand this. Jesus firstly had to go to the cross, so that He could become true manna and true drink. The Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. Praise Him!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Weren't it you who said:


The EO bishops, priests, and mystics read, but they didn't claim that they received all their knowledge only from the Spirit and the Word of God.

OK. Remember I'm basing my statements on recollection of what I heard from Witness Lee 28 to 40 years ago. So if anything I state is factually incorrect somebody please tell me. Let me clarify further. Lee admitted that he was "standing on the shoulders of others." So he did not claim that everything came from the Spirit and the Word. He claimed he had checked out everything he taught with the Spirit and the Word. But, he also claimed that he went further in terms of recovering the vision of the GEP. Did any of the EO recognized theologians claim anything like that? As far as his teaching which up to now seems similar to theosis, he did not say that he got the teaching from them but rather that after he received the teaching he read them and they confirmed it.

Do you claim that theosis comes from the Eucharist and the true Eucharist can only be partaken by the EO church members and therefore they are the only ones experiencing theosis? WL did not claim that theosis could only occur in the LRC although in many ways he implied that it was most likely to occur there if anywhere. Not everybody in the local churches was going to be an overcomer, but you had a better chance of being an overcomer if you were in the LRC.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no trap ICA.

I do not find the Lords words here to be illogical. They are spiritual rather, and the natural mind cannot know them. I Cor 2.14

The flesh in John 6.63 is not our sinful flesh, but our Lord's own flesh which is not sinful. John 1.14 says that the "Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us." His flesh has no sin, rather it was a tabernacle for the Word of God as He walked on earth. He was in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Rom 8.3

John 6.63 is our Lord's explanation to His disciples concerning their dilemma and confusion in 6.60-62. I am not mistaken to think this way as you assume, neither am I confused, and neither is my understanding illogical as you say.

What the Lord spoke requires faith, as He told the disciples in 6.64. Unfortunately some of the disciples were stumbled at this word and no longer walked with the Lord. 6.66-67

Concerning what the Lord was speaking to them about eating Him in John 6.57, His tabernacle in the flesh of His earthly body profited them nothing. John 6.63 Without a spirit of faith, as displayed by Peter in 6.68, they mistakenly thought that Jesus needed to be eaten like a roasted lamb, and they just could not understand this. Jesus firstly had to go to the cross, so that He could become true manna and true drink. The Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. Praise Him!

That's a great rundown bro.

I suppose that, when it comes to the bread and wine actually becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus, I'm among those that " turned back and no longer walked with him."

Cuz I'm never gonna be able to believe in such hocus-pocus magic juju. It's way to fantastical for me to hook the wagon of my brain to.

So this EO quote sums it up:

“It’s the body of Christ. Now stop asking so many stupid questions, and open your mouth!”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's a great rundown bro.

I suppose that, when it comes to the bread and wine actually becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus, I'm among those that " turned back and no longer walked with him."

Cuz I'm never gonna be able to believe in such hocus-pocus magic juju. It's way to fantastical for me to hook the wagon of my brain

Lee tackled these difficult subjects and presented to us the deeper side of our Christian walk. Some of what he ministered, especially in the early days, was very good.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm never gonna be able to believe in such hocus-pocus magic juju. It's way to fantastical for me to hook the wagon of my brain to.

I doubt God insists that you believe what others do. God simply asks that you get a clear and firm set of convictions, and live by them.

Each one gets something, and is told to do business. And each one, according to what he is given, will be judged. You will not be judged by zeek's faith, or mine, but by your own.

To whom is given much, to them much will be required. Don't compare your faith with others. Don't try to measure; only God is qualified to do that. You are not the judge, nor am I.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Do you claim that theosis comes from the Eucharist and the true Eucharist can only be partaken by the EO church members and therefore they are the only ones experiencing theosis?

No, I don't. Theosis doesn't come from the Eucharist. And it doesn't come from the Church. We Christians get it by God's grace. But the Eucharist is a part of the process. You have to eat the Lord's flesh and drink His blood. And that's what the Eastern Orthodox Christians have been doing for almost 2 000 years. Will they experience theosis? It's not a correct question. We are not talking about some magic pills. We are talking about Sacraments. Theosis is the goal and process; and the Eucharist is a component of the process. Besides, theosis is "becoming by grace what God is by nature". I believe the Orthodox Church is the original ancient Christian Church founded by Christ and apostles, not a medieval modification like Roman Catholics nor a modern sects like the LRC. So, we don't claim that God's grace belong to the Church and her members. It belongs to God and it's only Him who decides who will experience theosis. The life and future of an Orthodox Christian is in God's hands. It's the same about any other Christian. It's not his or her church or sect but God Who makes the decision. Therefore, it's only God knows who will be transformed and who will not.

Originally Posted by zeek

But, he also claimed that he went further in terms of recovering the vision of the GEP. Did any of the EO recognized theologians claim anything like that?

I am not aware of that. The Bible is the book of the Church. It was compiled by the Church Fathers long before Lee, Nee and even Luther. So the Bible was compiled by the Church Fathers and it were the Church Fathers who commented it. Our theologians keep the Holy Tradition received from the Fathers.

Just a few links about the Church history:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7053
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rthodox_Church Wiki
http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history (Time line)
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history.aspx

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no trap ICA.

I do not find the Lord's words here to be illogical. They are spiritual rather, and the natural mind cannot know them. I Cor 2.14

Ohio, I believe you know that the first Christians and the Church Fathers didn't share your rationalist understanding. Your point of view is relatively modern. The EO's view is ancient. Only God knows who is right. But I can assume that I might be mistaken.

Here is what the Orthodox Study Bible says about the issue:

For the first thousand years of Christian history, when the Church was visibly one and undivided, the holy gifts of the Body and Blood of Christ were received as just that: His Body and Blood. The Church confessed this was a mystery: The bread is truly His Body, and that which is in the cup is truly His Blood, but one cannot say how they become so.

The eleventh and twelfth centuries brought on the scholastic era, the Age of Reason in the West. The Roman Church, which had become separated from the Orthodox Church in A.D. 1054, was pressed by the rationalists to define how the transformation takes place. They answered with the word transubstantiation, meaning a change of substance. The elements are no longer bread and wine; they are physically changed into flesh and blood. The sacrament, which only faith can comprehend, was subjected to a philosophical definition. This second view of the Eucharist was unknown to the ancient Church.

Not surprisingly, one of the points of disagreement between Rome and the sixteenth-century reformers was the issue of transubstantiation. Unable to accept this explanation of the sacrament, the radical reformers, who were rationalists themselves, took up the opposite point of view: the gifts are nothing but bread and wine, period. They only represent Christ's Body and Blood; they have no spiritual reality. This third, symbol-only view helps explain the infrequency with which some Protestants partake of the Eucharist.

The Scriptures and the Eucharist

What do the Scriptures teach concerning the Eucharist?

Jesus said, 'This is My body ... this is My blood" (Luke 22:19, 20). There is never a statement that these gifts merely symbolise His Body and Blood. Critics have charged that Jesus also said of Himself, "I am the door" (John 10:7), and He certainly is not a seven-foot wooden plank. The flaw in that argument is obvious: at no time has the Church ever believed He was a literal door. But she has always believed the consecrated gifts of bread and wine are truly His Body and Blood.

In the New Testament, those who received Christ's Body and Blood unworthily are said to bring condemnation upon themselves. "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep" (literally, "are dead"; 1 Cor. 11:30). A mere symbol, a quarterly reminder, could hardly have the power to cause sickness and death!

Historically, from the New Testament days on, the central act of worship, the new apex of spiritual sacrifice, took place "on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts 20:7). The Eucharist has always been that supreme act of thanksgiving and praise to God in His Church.
from The Orthodox Study Bible, p392
http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Eucharist.htm

PS Brothers, if you don't mind, I will stop this discussion. I think I have explained my point of view.

[UntoHim]

InChristAlone and others,

Let's be careful to not emphasis side issues, such as transubstantiation, or other such teachings and practices, that are only remotely related to Lee's teachings on "God's Eternal Purpose". Maybe someone could dig up the most applicable quotes and printed teachings to serve as our guide. Of course many of us know this teaching inside out, and can discuss it from memory, but for the sake of others let's try to use quotes from Lee's ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Ohio, I believe you know that the first Christians and the Church Fathers didn't share your rationalist understanding. Your point of view is relatively modern.

It looks like you got the final word on this matter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

InChristAlone and others,

Let's be careful to not emphasis side issues, such as transubstantiation

What?! Witness Lee says that GEP is mingling, and Transubstantiation/Metousiosis is a side issue?

But perhaps you're right. I never ever heard, while in Lee's local church, or afterward, that, the bread and wine, at the Lord's Table, actually became the very flesh and blood of Jesus. What was Lee's teaching on that?

Not that we weren't trained to eat Jesus. We just did it by calling and pray-reading ... & going to meetings and conferences. I actually heard, at a conference, Lee say that, all we had to do was to show up at a conference and, we'd be transformed into Christ.

So if transubstantiation has anything to do with Lee it's because Lee took it wild.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What?! Witness Lee says that GEP is mingling, and Transubstantiation/Metousiosis is a side issue?

But perhaps you're right. I never ever heard, while in Lee's local church, or afterward, that, the bread and wine, at the Lord's Table, actually became the very flesh and blood of Jesus. What was Lee's teaching on that?

Not that we weren't trained to eat Jesus. We just did it by calling and pray-reading ...

One of Lee's final teachings was the progression of Mingling, Blending, and Incorporation.

Lee tried to convince us there was some sort of progression here.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

No, I don't. Theosis doesn't come from the Eucharist. And it doesn't come from the Church. We Christians get it by God's grace. But the Eucharist is a part of the process. You have to eat the Lord's flesh and drink His blood. And that's what the Eastern Orthodox Christians have been doing for almost 2 000 years. Will they experience theosis? It's not a correct question. We are not talking about some magic pills. We are talking about Sacraments. Theosis is the goal and process; and the Eucharist is a component of the process. Besides, theosis is "becoming by grace what God is by nature". I believe the Orthodox Church is the original ancient Christian Church founded by Christ and apostles, not a medieval modification like Roman Catholics nor a modern sects like the LRC. So, we don't claim that God's grace belong to the Church and her members. It belongs to God and it's only Him who decides who will experience theosis. The life and future of an Orthodox Christian is in God's hands. It's the same about any other Christian. It's not his or her church or sect but God Who makes the decision. Therefore, it's only God knows who will be transformed and who will not.


I am not aware of that. The Bible is the book of the Church. It was compiled by the Church Fathers long before Lee, Nee and even Luther. So the Bible was compiled by the Church Fathers and it were the Church Fathers who commented it. Our theologians keep the Holy Tradition received from the Fathers.

Just a few links about the Church history:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7053
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rthodox_Church Wiki
http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history (Time line)
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history.aspx

Well then perhaps your church is the true one and Lee's is a false one. You seem to think so and you have apostolic succession and an unbroken tradition to back you up. Have either you or someone you know been transformed into a God-like state through the theosis process? If so, what is that like?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of Lee's final teachings was the progression of Mingling, Blending, and Incorporation.

Lee tried to convince us there was some sort of progression here.

So Lee's GEP was/is Mingling, Blending, and Incorporation?

Why then not the Incorporation Brothers? And if not then the Blended Brothers are only half way, or 2 thirds the way. At any rate, falling short.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee's GEP was/is Mingling, Blending, and Incorporation?

Why then not the Incorporation Brothers? And if not then the Blended Brothers are only half way, or 2 thirds the way. At any rate, falling short.

Because it doesn't have quite the same ring.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because it doesn't have quite the same ring.

How about the Intrinsic Brothers? Because they know Witness Lee's ministry not outwardly, but intrinsically.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee's GEP was/is Mingling, Blending, and Incorporation?

Why then not the Incorporation Brothers? And if not then the Blended Brothers are only half way, or 2 thirds the way. At any rate, falling short.

When they need credentials, then they are Blendeds.

When they attempt to lead, then they are Blindeds.

When they attempt to speak, then they are Blandeds.

When they attempt to work, then they are Blundeds.

[UntoHim]

Geeez Ohio, tell us how you REALLY feel. Its not like you To hold back so much

[awareness]

So Lee's church, when it comes to the bread and wine, are like the Baptist church: It's symbolic fer doing the Lord's Table "in remembrance?"

While in the LC I always took the Lord's Table as symbolic. Prolly cuz I was raised that way.

Anybody? Was I wrong?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Geeez Ohio, tell us how you REALLY feel. Its not like you To hold back so much

After witnessing all the destruction they have wrought on the Midwest churches, I thought I was being quite generous with my assessments.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee's church, when it comes to the bread and wine, are like the Baptist church: It's symbolic fer doing the Lord's Table "in remembrance?"

While in the LC I always took the Lord's Table as symbolic. Prolly cuz I was raised that way.

Anybody? Was I wrong?

No.

The bread and wine are variously called symbols, elements, emblems, etc. by the church. The Lord told us to "do this" in remembrance of HIM.

Those who take the words "this is My body" literally only promote vain superstitions. I grew up in that magic show called the Mass. As an altar boy I constantly watched the priest magically transform that wafer into God. Then after the Mass, the priest had to lock up the tabernacle on the altar so that no one could "steal God" from the church.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No.

The bread and wine are variously called symbols, elements, emblems, etc. by the church. The Lord told us to "do this" in remembrance of HIM.

Those who take the words "this is My body" literally only promote vain superstitions. I grew up in that magic show called the Mass. As an altar boy I constantly watched the priest magically transform that wafer into God. Then after the Mass, the priest had to lock up the tabernacle on the altar so that no one could "steal God" from the church.

You know, if it was only that there was believed to be some mystical thing that happened to the bread and wine during communion, it would just be a strange, unsupportable teaching. But once you have to lock up what is not eaten so that people don't steal it and take it home to put on wounds, on crops, etc., in expectation of a miracle, then it has truly gone off the deep end.

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indie takes a cup of water out of the chamber and pours it on his dad who was seriously wounded by a bullet and the site of the wound miraculously closing up. If only Hollywood (and the RCC) could be true.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After witnessing all the destruction they have wrought on the Midwest churches, I thought I was being quite generous with my assessments.

Yes, in fact you were, my good friend, in fact you were.

This reminds me of a theme for a thread I would like to see develop (at some point) on our forum - How the different regions of North America - especially America and Canada - were/are affected by "The Blended Brothers". It never ceases to amaze me how vastly different these affects effected (or these effects affected) the various different regions/local churches. Anyway, this is a topic for a different thread!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

these affects effected (or these effects affected)

It's the second. "Effect" can be used as a noun or a verb, but "affect" is always a verb.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When they attempt to speak, then they are Blandeds.

Well, in all fairness I don't recall anyone offering me a Pulitzer for my writing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

You know, if it was only that there was believed to be some mystical thing that happened to the bread and wine during communion, it would just be a strange, unsupportable teaching. But once you have to lock up what is not eaten so that people don't steal it and take it home to put on wounds, on crops, etc., in expectation of a miracle, then it has truly gone off the deep end.

The doctrine of transubstantiation had serious life and death consequences. Jews were tortured and kill for host-nailing, or for killing Jesus all over again, by driving a nail thru the host.

"The hosts are stolen and sold to the Jewish community, who pierce them in a ritual. When guards come to question the Jews, they (the Jews) attempt to burn the Hosts, but are unsuccessful, as the Hosts transform into an infant carried by angels. The Jews, now proven guilty, are arrested, beheaded, and tortured with hot pincers, the entire community is driven out with their feet bound and held to the fire, and the Christian who sold the hosts to the Jews is punished. At the end the Christians kneel and pray."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Jews were tortured and kill for host-nailing, or for killing Jesus all over again, by driving a nail thru the host.

If it weren't true that would be funny.

I realize that I have defended the RCC in a minor way lately. But my defense is never of this kind of nonsense. As a whole, while I am more generous with the RCC than many (even among my current flock), it is only related to the understanding of salvation. In almost all other ways, they really do seem to be intent upon pushing it so far that they don't even have a lampstand to light the way.

But on salvation, I am convinced that they really believe in Christ, and that is the crux of salvation. No, they don't "come to faith" through some crisis that results in a line-in-the-sand "sinner's prayer." And Luther had it right when he tried to point out that salvation is more secure than they like to teach and much more secure than so many of their flock somewhat superstitiously believe.

I know some will argue that they preach a works-based salvation. And that is at least partly true. But if you come to believe, then the fact that you also did some pointless works to get there (in your own mind) doesn't change the fact of belief. Do you think that God will reject my belief because I also did some works under the mistaken thought that they were necessary to gain salvation?

I know this was not mentioned here, but I am getting a little tired of evangelicals' barely admitting that there might be some saved people within the RCC. While there is probably more room for cultural attendance without belief within that system, I think that in the final analysis, the number who are found in the Lamb's Book of Life will be much greater than we typically want to think. If there was ever an argument for the people despite many arguments against the system, the RCC is the poster child, with the LRC fighting tooth-and-nail to take their place.

And I still have no desire to convert to Catholicism and really shake my head at those who do. But I realize that there is a wealth of excellent theology and teaching from within the RCC. You just can't get there if you don't actually believe (IMHO).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

If it weren't true that would be funny.

I realize that I have defended the RCC in a minor way lately. But my defense is never of this kind of nonsense. As a whole, while I am more generous with the RCC than many (even among my current flock), it is only related to the understanding of salvation. In almost all other ways, they really do seem to be intent upon pushing it so far that they don't even have a lampstand to light the way.

But on salvation, I am convinced that they really believe in Christ, and that is the crux of salvation. No, they don't "come to faith" through some crisis that results in a line-in-the-sand "sinner's prayer." And Luther had it right when he tried to point out that salvation is more secure than they like to teach and much more secure than so many of their flock somewhat superstitiously believe.

I know some will argue that they preach a works-based salvation. And that is at least partly true. But if you come to believe, then the fact that you also did some pointless works to get there (in your own mind) doesn't change the fact of belief. Do you think that God will reject my belief because I also did some works under the mistaken thought that they were necessary to gain salvation?

I know this was not mentioned here, but I am getting a little tired of evangelicals' barely admitting that there might be some saved people within the RCC. While there is probably more room for cultural attendance without belief within that system, I think that in the final analysis, the number who are found in the Lamb's Book of Life will be much greater than we typically want to think. If there was ever an argument for the people despite many arguments against the system, the RCC is the poster child, with the LRC fighting tooth-and-nail to take their place.

And I still have no desire to convert to Catholicism and really shake my head at those who do. But I realize that there is a wealth of excellent theology and teaching from within the RCC. You just can't get there if you don't actually believe (IMHO).

Balanced and sound thoughts, bro OBW, loving & caring too.

To bring it back around to the GEP according to Witness Lee:

Witness Lee claimed that GEP is God mingling with man, accomplished by eating Jesus, by calling on the name and pray-reading.

The host-nailing Jews (I read some 10-15 yr'ago whole cities of Jews were burned for doing it) reveals the truth about the bread and wine becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus. If their claim was/is real and actual, not just superstitious make-believe, they wouldn't have killed the Jews. They would have said something like: "They know not what they do."

But they're not the only ones holding to such silly superstitions. I did a lot of eating and drinking of Jesus, while in the LC, being mingled day in and day out, for years and years.

And now look at me. What happened to all that mingling, all that deification, all that theosis, if you will, that was suppose to be going on in my being all those years? I sure wasted a lot of time doing those things.

How could I be going around calling God deaf, dumb, and mute, if I were transformed, even partially?

In truth, I wasn't eating Christ, any more than the RCC, with their transubstantiation -- and the Eastern Orthodox, for that matter, with their Metousiosis -- are eating the flesh and blood of Christ. Where's the fruit?

But maybe mingling does happen today. What do I know for certain? I haven't seen it, beyond doubt and question. But I haven't and can't see everybody.

I think that maybe Francis of Assisi would be a contender as an example of fruit, of mingling with God. Others too. But I didn't know them. And don't know their position and beliefs on mingling with God. Plus, I've noticed something about great people from the past: They aren't great until the myth makers finish with them.

"they (the Jews) attempt to burn the Hosts, but are unsuccessful, as the Hosts transform into an infant carried by angels."

LOL. Talk about myth making. At least it's laughable ... it's got that going for it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The doctrine of transubstantiation had serious life and death consequences. Jews were tortured and kill for host-nailing, or for killing Jesus all over again, by driving a nail thru the host.

Only you could pull that out of thin air, I mean cyberspace.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee's church, when it comes to the bread and wine, are like the Baptist church: It's symbolic fer doing the Lord's Table "in remembrance?"

While in the LC I always took the Lord's Table as symbolic. Prolly cuz I was raised that way.

Anybody? Was I wrong?

The note on John 6:54 in the Recovery Version states "Here flesh and blood are mentioned separately. The separation of blood and flesh indicates death. Here the Lord clearly indicated His death, that is, His being slain. He gave His body and shed His blood for us that we may have eternal life. To eat His flesh is to receive by faith all that He did in giving His body for us; and to drink His blood is to receive by faith all that He accomplished in shedding His blood for us. To eat His flesh and drink His blood is to receive Him, in His redemption, as life and the life supply by believing in what He did for us on the cross. By comparing this verse with v. 47 , we see that to eat the Lord’s flesh and drink His blood is to believe in Him, because to believe or to believe into is to receive ( 1: 12 )." That's a figurative interpretation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

The note on John 6:54 in the Recovery Version states "Here flesh and blood are mentioned separately. The separation of blood and flesh indicates death. Here the Lord clearly indicated His death, that is, His being slain. He gave His body and shed His blood for us that we may have eternal life. To eat His flesh is to receive by faith all that He did in giving His body for us; and to drink His blood is to receive by faith all that He accomplished in shedding His blood for us. To eat His flesh and drink His blood is to receive Him, in His redemption, as life and the life supply by believing in what He did for us on the cross. By comparing this verse with v. 47 , we see that to eat the Lord’s flesh and drink His blood is to believe in Him, because to believe or to believe into is to receive ( 1: 12 )." That's a figurative interpretation.

At least part of that is true. The problem is that the way it is presented is as "simply true." To me, this was one of Lee's most problematic features. He simply had the answer to everything. He was never unsure. And he seldom gave a reason. Just said it was so.

Was he right (or at least mostly so) here? Probably. Despite seldom referencing anyone but himself or Nee, he was not isolated from basic Christian theology. It had to be the underpinning of his little following or he would have only had basket cases and no "good material" to work with.

And while the important parts of what he put in that footnote are generally true, they are not unique to him. I can pretty much see it. Might not have described it in such "this is clearly (simply?) that, and this is that" terms. More like "this seems to indicate . . . ."

But being certain was part of how we got to his version of GEP and GE (God's economy). Those overlays, along with a couple more, like the ground of locality, redefined too much of scripture. And left us with a decimated Bible (as is being discussed in the inerrancy thread). Once you gut some important parts of the Bible, how can the actual purpose of God be imagined to arise from only the remainder?

As for the "clearly" part, it is only clear in hindsight. Not saying that the allusion to his death is not present. But it was not clear. Despite all of the prophecies and his own hints (maybe some before this?) no one was thinking in terms of the Messiah dying. They were expecting him to reign in the place of Pilot, not die so that he could reign in the hearts of many more than just the Jews in Judea.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only you could pull that out of thin air, I mean cyberspace.

No, bro Ohio. I read that in a history book before finding it on the internet. But there is plenty on the internet about it now. Don't make me have to dig up the book where I first got it out of.

So I stick my tongue out at you - - take that.

Love ya bro.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The note on John 6:54 in the Recovery Version states "Here flesh and blood are mentioned separately. The separation of blood and flesh indicates death. Here the Lord clearly indicated His death, that is, His being slain. He gave His body and shed His blood for us that we may have eternal life. To eat His flesh is to receive by faith all that He did in giving His body for us; and to drink His blood is to receive by faith all that He accomplished in shedding His blood for us. To eat His flesh and drink His blood is to receive Him, in His redemption, as life and the life supply by believing in what He did for us on the cross. By comparing this verse with v. 47 , we see that to eat the Lord’s flesh and drink His blood is to believe in Him, because to believe or to believe into is to receive ( 1: 12 )." That's a figurative interpretation.

Thanks Zeek. You nailed it. So was eating Jesus by calling and pray-reading figurative as well? That explains why no transformation ... even for Lee.

And his claim, that I heard him say, that just by attending conferences, we'd be transformed into the image of Christ, was just empty hyperbole ; more con from Lee ... and more of his megalomania.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for the "clearly" part, it is only clear in hindsight. Not saying that the allusion to his death is not present. But it was not clear.

And if eating his flesh and drinking his blood meant Jesus' death on the cross couldn't the disciples have thought Jesus meant to eat his corpse, and drink the blood from it?

So it wasn't literal at all. Jesus was speaking symbolically.

Actually I read from a Jewish historian that it was a custom back then to have a last meal with a departing friend. And after he left, when they got together for a meal again, to think of and remember him.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually I read from a Jewish historian that it was a custom back then to have a last meal with a departing friend. And after he left, when they got together for a meal again, to think of and remember him.

So, Jesus was taking care of the hearts of his friends by having a last meal with them (which was normal for their culture). I really love this wonderful loving Person! I want to be more like Him.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

At least part of that is true. The problem is that the way it is presented is as "simply true." To me, this was one of Lee's most problematic features. He simply had the answer to everything. He was never unsure. And he seldom gave a reason. Just said it was so.

Was he right (or at least mostly so) here? Probably. Despite seldom referencing anyone but himself or Nee, he was not isolated from basic Christian theology. It had to be the underpinning of his little following or he would have only had basket cases and no "good material" to work with.

And while the important parts of what he put in that footnote are generally true, they are not unique to him. I can pretty much see it. Might not have described it in such "this is clearly (simply?) that, and this is that" terms. More like "this seems to indicate . . . ."

But being certain was part of how we got to his version of GEP and GE (God's economy). Those overlays, along with a couple more, like the ground of locality, redefined too much of scripture. And left us with a decimated Bible (as is being discussed in the inerrancy thread). Once you gut some important parts of the Bible, how can the actual purpose of God be imagined to arise from only the remainder?

As for the "clearly" part, it is only clear in hindsight. Not saying that the allusion to his death is not present. But it was not clear. Despite all of the prophecies and his own hints (maybe some before this?) no one was thinking in terms of the Messiah dying. They were expecting him to reign in the place of Pilot, not die so that he could reign in the hearts of many more than just the Jews in Judea.

I think you would agree with me that the footnote is an interpretation that many protestants could accept without reservation if it were not coming from a preacher who was consistently against Christianity. That Jesus made these statements outside of the context of his last supper, argues against the conclusion that he is referring to the Eucharist. That he doesn't follow the statement with instructions about how to pray-read the Bible argues against that interpretation.

One can have a precise detached knowledge of another person, his psychological type and his calculable reactions, but in knowing this you do not know the person, his centered self, his knowledge of himself. Only in participating in his self, in performing a break-through into the center of his being, will you know him in the situation of your break-through to him. John 6:54 may be advocating that through faith we participate in Christ's existence with our own.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks Zeek. You nailed it. So was eating Jesus by calling and pray-reading figurative as well? That explains why no transformation ... even for Lee.

And his claim, that I heard him say, that just by attending conferences, we'd be transformed into the image of Christ, was just empty hyperbole ; more con from Lee ... and more of his megalomania.

I didn't mean to suggest that, because Lee gave a figurative interpretation of the verse, he denied it's spiritual power. So, no, I don't think that his figurative interpretation of the verse explains or necessarily supports your claim that there is "no transformation even for Lee".

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

So, Jesus was taking care of the hearts of his friends by having a last meal with them (which was normal for their culture). I really love this wonderful loving Person! I want to be more like Him.

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that Jesus went through death for me. He could have gotten on some fiery chariot, and said, "That's it, I'm outta here." But he faced death for me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't mean to suggest that, because Lee gave a figurative interpretation of the verse, he denied it's spiritual power.

I'm not sure what spiritual power your talking about: the power of the verse, or power of eating the bread of life.

Originally Posted by Zeek

So, no, I don't think that his figurative interpretation of the verse explains or necessarily supports your claim that there is "no transformation even for Lee".

Neither do I know what transformation you are speaking about.

Please clarify.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you would agree with me that the footnote is an interpretation that many protestants could accept without reservation if it were not coming from a preacher who was consistently against Christianity. That Jesus made these statements outside of the context of his last supper, argues against the conclusion that he is referring to the Eucharist. That he doesn't follow the statement with instructions about how to pray-read the Bible argues against that interpretation.

One can have a precise detached knowledge of another person, his psychological type and his calculable reactions, but in knowing this you do not know the person, his centered self, his knowledge of himself. Only in participating in his self, in performing a break-through into the center of his being, will you know him in the situation of your break-through to him. John 6:54 may be advocating that through faith we participate in Christ's existence with our own.

I don't know about what you say in the second paragraph (and I do not see anything hinting at me that you are obviously right or wrong). And I probably will simply note it as a reasonable understanding.

But on your first paragraph, I have to agree. If this were consistent with all of Lee's teachings, he would likely have had at least some respect in the Christian world. But his constant rants against everyone else, coupled with his penchant for novel, and even heretical teachings, makes this one footnote almost the exception to the rule. And no matter how many "good" footnotes we can find, they are the groundwork for being a good Bible scholar in the eyes of his followers so that he can provide all the others. It is as if teachings like this one are almost too low for him — especially since they are essentially in agreement with other Christian teachers — but they are necessary to prepare the flock for the fleecing.

You have to start the pot with room-temperature water, then turn up the heat a little at a time.

But people will point to people like me who came from other branches of Christianity and assert that it was the special teachings that were attractive. And I would agree. But they were still underpinned with the existence of these normal, everyday truths. Without those, we would never have let him get to the part where he pulls a word equivocation, or provides some spiritual-sounding story to assert something novel.

He needed to look like he had studied the whole Bible quite thoroughly to be able to convince us that he knew what he was talking about when he said that "if we would make a thorough and careful study of the Scriptures with spiritual insight, we would realize that God’s economy is simply His plan to dispense Himself into humanity. (The Economy of God, Chapter 1, paragraph 5, second sentence)" Note that in these various books both Lee and Nee would spend a whole paragraph (sometimes one of the longer ones) just making fact statement after fact statement, each with a verse reference provided, then follow-on at the end with a ridiculous statement that we just took as being as sound as all the others before. I saw this some years back when we were looking into a few of Nee's and Lee's books on these forums. It struck me as pointless to have some whole paragraph of factual statements that did not have any bearing on the topic at hand. Then I realized that the whole thing appeared to be a setup for the last sentence which was not a factual statement. But it was included as if it was just like all the others before it.

And we bought it. And probably those who were in the meetings where it was first spoken were shouting "amen" louder and louder with each fact provided. Once the stinker came, we weren't even looking. We just said "amen" louder and accepted that it must be the truth.

I will admit right here and now that I recall that this was quite an interesting discovery at the time. And I started noticing it in several other books that I just opened up to look into. But I cannot recall which ones those were, so I do not have an immediate example. But if someone just has to have it, I can eventually find one. And probably more than one.

[zeek]

I'm inclined to agree with much of what you say. But, my aim at this point is to get as close as I can to essence of Witness Lee's teaching concerning GEP. I also would like to see other theories of GEP. So far we have two others. One is ICA's claims about the EO church and aron's GEP theory. I want to be clear on what exactly they are claiming and welcome others. I have been considering presenting Thomas Aquinas' theory and/or John Calvin's. But, I haven't gotten around to it yet. Aquinas based his theory on Aristotle's natural theology. Calvin's is more biblically based.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not sure what spiritual power your talking about: the power of the verse, or power of eating the bread of life.

I think I assumed those were the same for Lee. Are they different?

Neither do I know what transformation you are speaking about.

Please clarify.

According to the Recovery Version of the Bible footnote on Romans 12:2[3c]:

"Transformation is the inward, metabolic process in which God works to spread His divine life and nature throughout every part of our being, particularly our soul, bringing Christ and His riches into our being as our new element and causing our old, natural element to be gradually discharged. As a result, we will be transformed into His image ( 2 Cor. 3: 18 ), that is, conformed to the image of the firstborn Son of God as His many brothers ( 8: 29 ). Thus we will be suitable for the building up of His Body."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think I assumed those were the same for Lee. Are they different?

According to the Recovery Version of the Bible footnote on Romans 12:23c:

Thanks. Well done. Your Recovery quote is in need of editing.

But the quote/footnote stands as it is:

"Transformation is the inward, metabolic process in which God works to spread His divine life and nature throughout every part of our being, particularly our soul, bringing Christ and His riches into our being as our new element and causing our old, natural element to be gradually discharged. As a result, we will be transformed into His image ( 2 Cor. 3: 18 ), that is, conformed to the image of the firstborn Son of God as His many brothers ( [Romans] 8: 29 ). Thus we will be suitable for the building up of His Body."

I'm as skeptical of transformation/deification/theosis into God, or into the image of Christ, as I am that the bread and wine of the Lord's table becomes the actual flesh and blood of Jesus.

I wonder if the transformation Paul is talking about is at the sound of the trumpet, when the resurrection, and change of our bodies into immortality happens?

This reference, for example:

2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

What does this mean? If see look thru a glass darkly, as Paul says elsewhere, how accurate can we change into the same image we're beholding?

“God became man so that men might become gods,”-Athanasius/Witness Lee

But the Bible never comes out and says such a thing outright. It has to be embellished out the ying yang, as Witness Lee did.

Let's face it, The Eternal Purpose of God, according to Lee, hinges on this outlandish embellishment of claiming we can become deified.

So I have to ask: Can I be transformed into God?

Hey, I once was a very sexual being. Now I'm celibate. Does that mean I've been transformed?

I think claimers of theosis are confusing divine transformation with the change in our biology as we age.

Cuz so far, I've seen only one in all history that was deified. Even Paul, and definitely Witness Lee, were never deified (except for the claims of the Lee myth makers).

[Cal]

"Transformation is the inward, metabolic process in which God works to spread His divine life and nature throughout every part of our being, particularly our soul, bringing Christ and His riches into our being as our new element and causing our old, natural element to be gradually discharged. As a result, we will be transformed into His image ( 2 Cor. 3: 18 ), that is, conformed to the image of the firstborn Son of God as His many brothers ( 8: 29 ). Thus we will be suitable for the building up of His Body."

This is mostly a bunch of non-biblical preening designed to impress the weak-minded with high-sounding words.

Where does the Bible say God spreads his divine life and nature throughout our being as a new element causing our natural element to be discharged? This is not in the Bible. Lee made it up. Sounds great, but it's pure speculation.