Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not impressed with the likes of you.

More strawman

The strawman people are throwing around here is that Lee taught we become God's being/person/member of the Trinity/Godhead. There is pages of material on the web and numerous quotes by Lee to qualify his statements. The attitude towards Lee therefore is called "unrighteous judgement".

[Evangelical]

Here are a few quotes from CS Lewis about becoming God:

He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a God

"It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship… There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit.”

Many Christians are fine with CS Lewis and don't regard him as a heretic. Here is some praise heaped upon him by gotquestions:

https://www.gotquestions.org/C-S-Lewis.html

"C. S. Lewis is often described as one of the greatest Christian apologists of the twentieth century."

"C. S. Lewis stands as a shining example of the influence a Christian can have in both the university and popular culture. "

"As an apologist and writer, C. S. Lewis was exemplary, and his books are among the most useful ever written"

Yet he never qualified well his statements about being God (capital G too) and most evangelicals forget or ignore he believed or wrote that at all, because evangelicals don't really care about heresy, they care about being popular and relevant.

Yet Lee is treated with disdain despite many pages of material qualifying his statements, and flat out denials that deification means we become God Himself. If this is not hypocrisy I don't know what is. It is also hypocritical to give John Piper a free pass when it is clear that he wrote a prayer of thanks to the most graceful Saint Athanasius, and forgot to thank Jesus at all - "Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father. And thank you, Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, Amen."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The strawman people are throwing around here is that Lee taught we become God's being/person/member of the Trinity/Godhead.

Mr. E.,
Please tell us about the God who we become "in life and nature". I really would like to know about this God. Seriously. This particular life and nature is apparently apart from his "being and person". According to you and Witness Lee, God has two lifes and two natures - one life and nature that we become, and one life and nature that we do not become. If this nonsense sounds familiar, it's because Witness Lee made a habit out of teaching unbiblical and illogical stuff. Lee also had at least two Jesus(es)....One that rose from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father, and one that "became the life-giving Spirit". Oh, and let's not forget about the two Fathers - One Jesus who is called the Father, and another Father that was on the cross with Jesus.

As far as using the writings of C.S. Lewis to confirm the orthodoxy of Witness Lee's unbiblical/heretical teachings...well let's just go to another genuine, bonafide theologian, Dr. John Piper, for some assistance, shall we?
"Lewis is not a writer to which we should turn for growth in a careful biblical understanding of Christian doctrine. There is almost no passage of Scripture on which I would turn to Lewis for exegetical illumination. … His value is not in his biblical exegesis. Lewis is not the kind of writer who provides substance for a pastor’s sermons."
excerpt from http://equip.sbts.edu

Actually Mr E., you are missing something very crucial when it comes to considering whether a teaching is biblical or unbiblical, orthodox or heretical. What you don't seem to understand is that an unbiblical/heretical statement/declaration/teaching is unbiblical/heretical no matter who states it, declares it or teaches it. Orthodoxy does not ultimately reside with the teacher(s), it always resides with God himself and his living and abiding Word. I understand that this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, for you are used to your guru being referred to as "the acting god", "the deputy authority", "even if he's wrong, he's right!" "The One Minister with The One Ministry for the Age"...etc, etc..
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Mr E., you are missing something very crucial when it comes to considering whether a teaching is biblical or unbiblical, orthodox or heretical. What you don't seem to understand is that an unbiblical/heretical statement/declaration/teaching is unbiblical/heretical no matter who states it, declares it or teaches it. Orthodoxy does not ultimately reside with the teacher(s), it always resides with God himself and his living and abiding Word. I understand that this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, for you are used to your guru being referred to as "the acting god", "the deputy authority", "even if he's wrong, he's right!" "The One Minister with The One Ministry for the Age"...etc, etc.. -

UntoHim,

Don't forget this post by the E-man which should be considered as the bedrock of whatever is put forth by the E:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

.... Straw-man's are part and parcel of this sort of discussion - grow up and get over it. I'm not asking for respect, I'm questioning why ... .

So, he relies on "Straw-man's" (?), if you don't like it it's your own immaturity, respect is not important to him..." So, we really can't expect much from such a one, can we?

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

UntoHim, Don't forget this post by the E-man which should be considered as the bedrock of whatever is put forth by the E: So, he relies on "Straw-man's" (?), if you don't like it it's your own immaturity, respect is not important to him..." So, we really can't expect much from such a one, can we?

Well respect is earned, not given, especially since others in this forum have said similar things to me, for example Igzy wrote in this thread:

"As for your weird and unbiblical obsession with names, whatever. Grow up. Get a life. Do something that shows you have some sense. "

And people were mocking my testimony, calling it a joke, and you did call me a troll, numerous times. So don't talk to me about "mutual respect" if you can't show respect yourself.


This only proves what Drake wrote:

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

I was being pragmatic, that straw-mans are expected in this sort of discussion, they are everywhere, in the media, and even in formal debates. I try to address the straw man argument with facts and move on rather than worry about who said what to whom.

However as this post shows some people just want to make it personal.

The "bedrock" I have put forth is credible bible scholars and theologians.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr. E.,
Please tell us about the God who we become "in life and nature". I really would like to know about this God. Seriously. This particular life and nature is apparently apart from his "being and person". According to you and Witness Lee, God has two lifes and two natures - one life and nature that we become, and one life and nature that we do not become. If this nonsense sounds familiar, it's because Witness Lee made a habit out of teaching unbiblical and illogical stuff. Lee also had at least two Jesus(es)....One that rose from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father, and one that "became the life-giving Spirit". Oh, and let's not forget about the two Fathers - One Jesus who is called the Father, and another Father that was on the cross with Jesus.

As far as using the writings of C.S. Lewis to confirm the orthodoxy of Witness Lee's unbiblical/heretical teachings...well let's just go to another genuine, bonafide theologian, Dr. John Piper, for some assistance, shall we?
"Lewis is not a writer to which we should turn for growth in a careful biblical understanding of Christian doctrine. There is almost no passage of Scripture on which I would turn to Lewis for exegetical illumination. … His value is not in his biblical exegesis. Lewis is not the kind of writer who provides substance for a pastor’s sermons."
excerpt from http://equip.sbts.edu

Actually Mr E., you are missing something very crucial when it comes to considering whether a teaching is biblical or unbiblical, orthodox or heretical. What you don't seem to understand is that an unbiblical/heretical statement/declaration/teaching is unbiblical/heretical no matter who states it, declares it or teaches it. Orthodoxy does not ultimately reside with the teacher(s), it always resides with God himself and his living and abiding Word. I understand that this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, for you are used to your guru being referred to as "the acting god", "the deputy authority", "even if he's wrong, he's right!" "The One Minister with The One Ministry for the Age"...etc, etc..
-

You are forgetting that I used John Piper to support Lee in my earlier post. So trying to discredit CS Lewis does not work. Piper, Blackwell, CS Lewis, all match with Lee's doctrine, I could quote any of them.

To some CS Lewis is the greatest theologian ever and to others, like Piper I guess he is not. But like CS Lewis, Piper is supportive of the doctrine of theosis, and explains how evangelicals/protestants indeed do believe in it, they just call it by another name "glorification". With that, Blackwell seems to disagree, mentioning how it is virtually unknown. I see Piper's point about glorification but in essence the doctrine is different - evangelicals see it as a legal contract and something we get because of that contract, and even see it as the end goal of sanctification/holiness - but the actual doctrine of theosis is about a process involving the person of God Himself (as the Spirit) and being transformed into His image. So Piper is just trying to be friendly to Orthodox beliefs in my view, and make evangelicalism match up with Orthodoxy. But it is notable how Piper does not flat out reject the doctrine, or the historical orthodoxy of it. He is so smitten by it that he throws in a prayer to St Athanasius as well.

At this point in time Piper's credibility itself is in question as he has written a prayer to St Athanasius. I'm just interpreting the plain English words he wrote down as you are of Lee. To me there is no reason why one should thank a dead person as if they are standing in front of them and then follow it up by "in Jesus name, Amen". That's a prayer, you are just unwilling to see and admit that it is because of your anti-Lee bias. It's perfectly acceptable to say a respected theologian such as Piper made a mistake in writing a prayer of thanks to Athanasius. I can tell that Piper misspoke because I noticed no one has tried to defend him or qualify his statements for him. Even you didn't, you simply called into question my ability to read English.

I appreciate your take on Orthodoxy as "God Himself and His Word", I tend to agree, and have shown how God's divinity and the Psalm 82 support the doctrine of theosis, but I take a more pragmatic view what talking about particular doctrines. Orthodoxy in practice is defined relative to whichever group is making the claim of Orthodoxy or heresy. For this reason the teacher/person making the claim of Orthodoxy must be evaluated relative to other teachers. This is how the doctrine of the Trinity won over the doctrine of Arianism. It's why heresy to a Catholic and heresy to a Protestant are different things.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Piper is supportive of the doctrine of theosis, and explains how evangelicals/protestants indeed do believe in it, they just call it by another name "glorification".

So "theosis" = "gorification", Mr E.? Really? I hope you don't quit your day job for being a wanna-be-theologian (like your acting god Witness Lee) because you and yours are going to be homeless and starve to death if you do. Seriously, my man, you're clueless. You wouldn't know orthodox, evangelical theology if it came up and bit you on the nose. You only know what you google - and you're not very good at that...so hang on to your hat my brother.

But it is notable how Piper does not flat out reject the doctrine, or the historical orthodoxy of it. He is so smitten by it that he throws in a prayer to St Athanasius as well

If you admit that you you believe that Witness Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle (since 1945) and that he is "The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age" and that "the process of sanctification is only taking place in the Local Church of Witness Lee" (per Benson Phillips, the president of LSM) then I will concede that John Piper was giving a prayer to "St. Athanasius".

Man Up or shut up. Or are you like most Local Churchers who are all bark and no bite? You play like you are a man of your convictions...but you always back away when it comes to showing your real convictions. Bring it on. Tell me..tell us, about who Witness Lee is to you. I'll tell you who John Piper, who Billy Graham, who any man on earth is to me. Don't be shy. Don't be coy. Tell us who Witness Lee is to you. If you won't tell us this then you have nothing to say to us. Your credibility is null and void. You are here claiming to be a member of the Local Church (and by extension a follower of the person and work of Witness Lee)...so tell us about your convictions regarding Witness Lee. Tell us about your convictions regarding his teachings. Was he lying or telling the truth when he swore under other in a legal deposition that "he does not consider himself to be an apostle, and he told others to not consider him an apostle"?
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So "theosis" = "gorification", Mr E.? Really? I hope you don't quit your day job for being a wanna-be-theologian (like your acting god Witness Lee) because you and yours are going to be homeless and starve to death if you do. Seriously, my man, you're clueless. You wouldn't know orthodox, evangelical theology if it came up and bit you on the nose. You only know what you google - and you're not very good at that...so hang on to your hat my brother.

I'm not trying to be a theologian, but at least I'm reading their articles and quoting them - I'm just paraphrasing the John Piper article where it says:

What becomes clear when all is taken into account is that Athanasius is pressing on a reality in the Scriptures that we today usually call “glorification”

Glorification (in Western terminology), or deification (according to the East)

He loves the doctrine of deification or theosis, who knew, that evangelicals have been teaching it all along! This is that ground-breaking moment when you realize John Piper is in "the recovery" and bringing back the early church beliefs.

You are talking as if you know what you are talking about and saying how John Piper is a real theologian and all, but you haven't even read his article. What is the use of knowing who the theologians are if you don't know what they are saying?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If you admit that you you believe that Witness Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle (since 1945) and that he is "The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age" and that "the process of sanctification is only taking place in the Local Church of Witness Lee" (per Benson Phillips, the president of LSM) then I will concede that John Piper was giving a prayer to "St. Athanasius".

Man Up or shut up. Or are you like most Local Churchers who are all bark and no bite? You play like you are a man of your convictions...but you always back away when it comes to showing your real convictions. Bring it on. Tell me..tell us, about who Witness Lee is to you. I'll tell you who John Piper, who Billy Graham, who any man on earth is to me. Don't be shy. Don't be coy. Tell us who Witness Lee is to you. If you won't tell us this then you have nothing to say to us. Your credibility is null and void. You are here claiming to be a member of the Local Church (and by extension a follower of the person and work of Witness Lee)...so tell us about your convictions regarding Witness Lee. Tell us about your convictions regarding his teachings. Was he lying or telling the truth when he swore under other in a legal deposition that "he does not consider himself to be an apostle, and he told others to not consider him an apostle"?
-

I've made my views on Lee clear in many posts. I think anyone who starts hundreds of churches would be an apostle to be able to do that.

But given that most of your post is ad hominem it is time to quote Drake again:

Evangelical is making a very compelling case and I am reading his explanation with great interest. Anytime you see those personal insults toward him then it is apparent they have lost the argument, or are losing it quickly, so they resort to ad hominem attacks to supplement weak arguments. Then it’s time to pause and consider what he is saying that has left them flummoxed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I've made my views on Lee clear in many posts. I think anyone who starts hundreds of churches would be an apostle to be able to do that.

Who are you talking about?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who are you talking about?

Witness Lee

[Evangelical]

Even though Piper equates "glorification" in the West with theosis in the East, I think there are differences that he does not elaborate on but probably could.

The EOC views it as a transformative process which comes by union/cooperation with God:

Theosis, or deification, is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. ... It is considered achievable only through a synergy (or cooperation) between human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).

Evangelicals however view glorification as removal of sin and the sin nature, and it is not a process but a future event. I will quote gotquestions because they usually reflect the view of a majority of evangelicals:

From https://www.gotquestions.org/glorification.html

The short answer is that “glorification” is God's final removal of sin from the life of the saints (i.e., everyone who is saved) in the eternal state (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17). At Christ’s coming, the glory of God (Romans 5:2)—His honor, praise, majesty, and holiness—will be realized in us; instead of being mortals burdened with sin nature

As indicated by the gotquestions explanation of glorification, most evangelicals do not see glorification as the goal of salvation. They see the goal as to be "free from sin" and glorification is a way to achieve that.

What evangelicals and the EOC both share in common is that there will be a process of transformation. The disagreement lies in what is the purpose of that transformation (to be like God or to be free from a sin nature?), how it comes about (a life-long process of cooperation with God?, or a one-off future event?).

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I've made my views on Lee clear in many posts.

Nice dodge. Not quite as smooth as Drake's have been over the years...but can't blame you for tryin. So it's an "ad hominem" for me to request to tell us who Witness Lee is to you? Why are you so afraid to tell us, Mr. E.? Please take me up on my offer. I will readily admit what I think about John Piper praying to Athanasius if you fess up and tell us about who Witness Lee is to you. More to the point...do you subscribe to the OFFICIAL recognition by the OFFICIAL LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH (Blended Brothers et al) that Witness Lee is THE ONE MINISTER WITH THE ONE MINISTRY FOR THE AGE? DO YOU AGREE THAT HE WAS THE ONLY PERSON SPEAKING AS GOD'S ORACLE ON EARTH SINCE 1945? These are yes or no.

You are talking as if you know what you are talking about and saying how John Piper is a real theologian and all, but you haven't even read his article. What is the use of knowing who the theologians are if you don't know what they are saying?

My man, I've forgotten more about what John Piper has taught than you will ever know. (same thing with Witness Lee...while you were wallowing around in poor, poor Christianity I was sitting in one of those hard plastic chairs in Anaheim for 30 2+hour messages for 10 days twice a year for MANY YEARS. You are clueless. Well meaning and probably well intentioned...but clueless. Please go and tell your elder how much you have been reading John Piper. He will rebuke you and make you shout out "Ooooh Loooorrrrrdddd Jeeeesssuuuss" 100 times. Go for it...might do you some good anyhow.

Mr. E. Again. You have ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY until you tell us who Witness Lee is to you. An "apostle" you say? Do you know that Witness Lee NEVER ONE TIME HERE IN AMERICA CLAIMED TO BE AN APOSTLE OF ANY KIND? You do know that Witness Lee swore under oath (under penalty of perjury) that he did not consider himself an apostle and that he asked others to not consider him an apostle..You do know that, don't your? Do you know that he publicly rebuked people (more than one time) for calling him an "apostle"? Of course you don't know this because you're clueless. You don't know anything about the man accept what people have told you and the extremely edited messages and books you have read.

Mr. E., if you would stop googling and start facing up to the realities of the false teachings of Witness Lee for about 5 minutes you would really be better off...and so would my blood pressure...but that's another story.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So "theosis" = "gorification", Mr E.? Really? I hope you don't quit your day job for being a wanna-be-theologian (like your acting god Witness Lee) because you and yours are going to be homeless and starve to death if you do. Seriously, my man, you're clueless. You wouldn't know orthodox, evangelical theology if it came up and bit you on the nose. You only know what you google - and you're not very good at that...so hang on to your hat my brother.

No, UntoHim.
E is not a wanna-be-theologian.

Some one is a budding higher echelon LSM blended.
Wonder whether he has a day job.
Proving himself in this forum for his place and position among the 'gods'.