Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

As much as people would like to think that Hank chose the EOC to "get away from" the local churches, that is probably not the case. He chose the EOC because of Watchman Nee's teachings and a desire to be made God. For this reason a better question to ask is why did he not stay in evangelicalism? (because they don't teach about becoming God).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

(because they don't teach about becoming God).

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith.

Yet not a single verse to support such a teaching.

All they got are a few lines from Athanasius.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yet not a single verse to support such a teaching.

All they got are a few lines from Athanasius.

Actually a number of early church fathers mentioned it, including those close to the disciples of the apostles.

Do we really think if it was so heretical they would have talked about it in such a candid way? I don't. In fact, during the time when the Trinity was defined and real heretics were hunted down and killed, no one thought to mention the "heresy" of theosis/man becoming God. The simple reason is it was not a heresy.

I wonder what Jesus thinks every time a key teaching and blessing of God is called a heresy by those who know no better. It might remind us of the Sadducee who denied the resurrection.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually a number of early church fathers mentioned it, including those close to the disciples of the apostles.

Do we really think if it was so heretical they would have talked about it in such a candid way? I don't. In fact, during the time when the Trinity was defined and real heretics were hunted down and killed, no one thought to mention the "heresy" of theosis/man becoming God. The simple reason is it was not a heresy.

I wonder what Jesus thinks every time a key teaching and blessing of God is called a heresy by those who know no better. It might remind us of the Sadducee who denied the resurrection.

These same church "fathers" gave us monasticism, the distorted oneness of the RCC, and the bishopric hierarchy of Popes, who then plunged the Western world into the Dark Ages. All I am saying here is that the teachings of the church fathers must be carefully examined against the scriptures.

How can you, as did W. Lee, discredit and dismiss the book of James, numerous Psalms and Proverbs, and then tell us to accept theosis, the teaching that man becomes God/god? What good fruit has ever come out of this aberrant teaching? The love of God exhibited on the cross of Christ is the highest gospel mankind will ever need.

I find it highly suspicious that W. Lee introduced these so-called "high peak" teachings when he did, since the motive was to divert everyone's attention from the failures of the "new way" and those serious scandals taking place in his ministry, especially the abuse and molesting of sisters by his son Philip Lee. Ever hear of "Wagging The Dog?"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These same church "fathers" gave us monasticism, the distorted oneness of the RCC, and the bishopric hierarchy of Popes, who then plunged the Western world into the Dark Ages. All I am saying here is that the teachings of the church fathers must be carefully examined against the scriptures.

How can you, as did W. Lee, discredit and dismiss the book of James, numerous Psalms and Proverbs, and then tell us to accept theosis, the teaching that man becomes God/god? What good fruit has ever come out of this aberrant teaching? The love of God exhibited on the cross of Christ is the highest gospel mankind will ever need.

I find it highly suspicious that W. Lee introduced these so-called "high peak" teachings when he did, since the motive was to divert everyone's attention from the failures of the "new way" and those serious scandals taking place in his ministry, especially the abuse and molesting of sisters by his son Philip Lee. Ever hear of "Wagging The Dog?"

It's true that many church fathers had peculiar beliefs. Collectively however they paint a picture that the doctrine of theosis or "man becoming god" was not so heretical as many today say it is.

[Evangelical]

John Piper seems partial to the teaching, he explains it in terms of glorification, and I suppose he must, so that he does not draw fire from fellow evangelicals, but neither does he discount it and neither does he try to discredit early church fathers like Athanasius (like Ohio has):

Finally, we must not assume that old books, which say some startling things, are necessarily wrong, but may in fact have something glorious to teach us that we never dreamed

Athanasius has helped me go deeper here by unsettling me.

His language of deification forces me to think more deeply and worship more profoundly

I am thankful to God that I did not run away from the word “deification” in Athanasius. There is here “a grace the magnitude of which our minds can never fully grasp.”49 Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father. And thank you, Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...ng-for-our-all

I don't know if it is poor editing or intentional, but what surprised me was his last sentence which seems as if he is praying to Athanasius to thank him.

Piper's words reflects the problem that many evangelicals face - an apparent inner conflict over accepting Athanasius sometimes but not at other times. A hesitation to accept the early fathers with open arms, even though they stand upon and declare the orthodoxy of their doctrines, established centuries ago. Athanasius is too orthodox and important to all Christians to be declared an absolute heretic, so Piper must somehow explain Athanasius in light of evangelical doctrine. Which is a shame, because it should be the other way around - evangelical doctrine should be willing to adapt to the wisdom of the early church theologians, to bring it back in line with what almost all Christians believed in the past, including Luther and Calvin, and CS Lewis.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's true that many church fathers had peculiar beliefs. Collectively however they paint a picture that the doctrine of theosis or "man becoming god" was not so heretical as many today say it is.

There is no "painted picture" of man becoming God. All sorts of ancients were "picking and choosing" what they wanted to "paint" with from the writings of the Church Fathers.

The RCC picked up on what they preferred and what did that give us? They built their Papal hierarchy using the writings of the church "father" Ignatius rather than the writings of scripture.

Evangelical, what then is our standard? What is our "constitution?" What is the basis of the truths we hold dear? If the writings of the church fathers rises to the level of scripture, then all sorts of heresy will ensue.

Why is it when the church somewhere or sometime falls into layers of tradition, losing sight of the truths, longing to return to the simplicity of Christ, they ALWAYS go back to the Bible. Whether during the Restoration, or the Reformation, or the Recovery, or the Pentecostal, or the Charismatic, etc. movement, each initiated by the Spirit of God, the Spirit NEVER directs these saints to return to the "church fathers?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's true that many church fathers had peculiar beliefs. Collectively however they paint a picture that the doctrine of theosis or "man becoming god" was not so heretical as many today say it is.

When has man never wanted to be God? Adam and Eve became "as one of us." If we inherit their sin, then we also inherit that.

So why try to be what we already are? What, if we call on Jesus enough does it 'call' away our flesh?

And I don't think that many today think it's heretical as much as they think it's not possible.

But not Hank. He converted for deification -- or maybe he just likes silly hats. Either way, I wouldn't trust any answer from the Answer Man ... even if he comes back a Christian mystic ... in fact, specially if he comes back, or turns into, a mystic.

But to be fair. Hank's battle with cancer may be behind his conversion. It sure would scare the beejeebies out of me. I'd prolly be inclined towards the most assured Orthodoxy, like the EO, too. That is if I feared death. Cancer can hit any of us at any time, regardless of age. It can kill the body.

So let's say deification is possible. If cancer kills the body and we're only partially deified, do we only get a partially immortalized body?

Just wondering why the push to become deified? And if it's maybe just an illusion, a mirage in this bleak desert of a world, beyond the reach of anything except the imagination.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith.

The historical evidence is overwhelming that deification was a fundamental aspect of the doctrine of salvation in the time of the early church. Those who defined the Trinity against heresies all believed in it. We may say that salvation without deification is not really salvation at all, to emphasize the important that it held in the early church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As much as people would like to think that Hank chose the EOC to "get away from" the local churches, that is probably not the case. He chose the EOC because of Watchman Nee's teachings and a desire to be made God. For this reason a better question to ask is why did he not stay in evangelicalism? (because they don't teach about becoming God).

Oh! So Hank thinks the EO is better at theosis than the local church. And when has Hank not been wrong?

[Sons to Glory!]

So do Nee's teachings promote theosis (I guess I've learned a new word)?

My thinking is that most of us (i.e., Christians) don't have much of a revelation of who we really have been made in Christ. Most Christian speakings I have an opportunity to listen to on radio or TV are more concerned with the redemption aspect of the good news, and then what we must do afterward - but they preach it mostly in an Old Covenant way. It is rare when one of these ones will expound well on "what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints."

There is so, so much more to be seen in scripture regarding who we really are in Him! My current understanding of this revelation in scripture is we are being made one in life and nature with God (e.g., John 17), but that we do not become part of the omnipotent Godhead, right?

But from what I've read on here, many think WL crossed over that line - is that correct?

[UntoHim]

Actually, Witness Lee did something much worse than simply crossing over the line - he tried to move the line itself....and then claim to anyone who would listen "this is the line of orthodoxy...all you poor, poor Christians have been getting it all wrong for over 2,000 years. The line is actually not there...it is over here, where I say it is!" Of course Lee was not the only one who tried to pull a fast one on us gullible American Christians...but he is the one we are all most familiar with. I only mention this to head certain people off at the pass before they cry out "that guy over there said something just like that!" or "that guy over there taught the exact same thing and you didn't call him a heretic!". So, don't say I didn't warn you....wait for it....here it comes...
-

[awareness]

Hank has gone to the EO to become God. What will he be like when he comes back? Will he no longer be The Bible Answer Man? Will he perchance be The God Answer Man?

Basically, I guess, if you're gonna go for Orthodoxy, skip Witness Lee and go to The Father of Orthodoxy, Athanasius_of_Alexandria. You know, who quipped, "He was made human so that he might make us gods," way back in the 4th century, when Christianity was made the state religion.

Christians were becoming gods alright. And like Witness Lee became obsessed with having the authority of God.

Maybe Hank will come back with that authority.

Thanks for heading us off at the pass bro Untohim.

[Sons to Glory!]

Do we think Nee taught theosis? And who might be the big promoters of that be?

And does anyone really know what we shall be (as the scripture sayeth - "Eye has not seen nor ear hear nor has it come up in the heart of man . . .")?