Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well my brother, the only reason you know that our inheritance is in Christ is that someone taught you about this truth. Yes, you may have read that for yourself in the Bible, but for the truth to become "reality" to you (reality being a secondary meaning of ἀλήθεια Aletheia) there needs to be some expounding and expanding upon this simple yet profound truth.

So let us celebrate! Let us also be men and women of discernment. We can do both at the same time, I believe.[/COLOR]
-

Ahhh - the "Wise as serpents yet gentle as doves" thing . . . Sure and amen.

I don't know that I agree with you completely on the first paragraph. I have had things spoken directly to me by the Anointing that I'd never heard before. For instance, I was saved at a pretty young age and never spent much time in the Bible then. But when I was 18 I had a miraculous spiritual and physical renewing that came with healing inside and out. At that time the words, "I is dead" kept bubbling up inside me. I had little idea what the ramifications were, and knew no supporting scriptures - just the speaking within, which was so very clear. This really backs up the word in 1 John 2:27: "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I have had things spoken directly to me by the Anointing that I'd never heard before...I had little idea what the ramifications were, and knew no supporting scriptures - just the speaking within, which was so very clear. This really backs up the word in 1 John 2:27: "the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you."

Your point and example here is valid and is well-taken Son to Glory! However, I must tell you that the point/example you give is not necessarily related to or analogous to the point I was making in my last post. It does remind me, though, of something that happened in Acts 18:
Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

I think there is little doubt that Apollos was under "the anointing", which caused him to be "fervent in spirit" and even "speak and teach accurately the things concerning Jesus". Yet, Priscilla (..gasp...a sister!) and Aquila still went to him to "explain to him the way of God more accurately". I guess that Apollos could have puffed out his chest and rebuked them, proclaiming that he was already "competent in the Scriptures" and "had been instructed in the way of the Lord". (I suppose he could have also rebuked Priscilla for having the gall to presume that a woman could teach a man "more accurately")

My point is simple. We are always in need of something or someone outside of ourselves, or outside of our immediately sphere of influence, or even outside of our immediate experience or knowledge of the Scriptures, to give us perspective. Our individual understanding and discernment can be, at times, somewhat myopic and misguided. We may very well be "competent in the Scriptures" and even "fervent in spirit", but still be in need of someone to "explain the way of God more accurately".

It seems to me that Witness Lee was a man who desperately needed someone(s) to explain the way of God more accurately to him. History tells us that many faithful ones attempted to do just that...people from within the LC movement, and even some from without the LC movement. Lee refused such correction/fellowship at every turn. Instead of being humble like Apollos, he ignored such ones coming to him (if they were lucky) and more often he would viciously attack and defame the character of the ones from within the LC movement, and as for the ones from outside the movement, well, they received much harsher treatment from Witness.

And now the "Blended Brothers" have taken on the same attitude as Witness Lee. In fact, the entire Local Church movement is saturated and polluted with this kind of arrogant and haughty attitude.

Ok, end of rant. It just breaks my heart to see such a large lot of God's people carried away from the truth. Undoubtedly, undeniably there is some "accurate speaking and teaching" from the ministry of Witness Lee, but there is also a desperate need for more accuracy, and even more for a large dose of humility. God have mercy.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My point is simple. We are always in need of something or someone outside of ourselves, or outside of our immediately sphere of influence, or even outside of our immediate experience or knowledge of the Scriptures, to give us perspective. Our individual understanding and discernment can be, at times, somewhat myopic and misguided. We may very well be "competent in the Scriptures" and even "fervent in spirit", but still be in need of someone to "explain the way of God more accurately".

It seems to me that Witness Lee was a man who desperately needed someone(s) to explain the way of God more accurately to him. History tells us that many faithful ones attempted to do just that...people from within the LC movement, and even some from without the LC movement. Lee refused such correction/fellowship at every turn. Instead of being humble like Apollos, he ignored such ones coming to him (if they were lucky) and more often he would viciously attack and defame the character of the ones from within the LC movement, and as for the ones from outside the movement, well, they received much harsher treatment from Witness.

You bet and good example (regarding Apollos)! We certainly all need clarifying fellowship and also the scriptures to show us/confirm what the Anointing is telling us. While the Anointing telling me at that young age, "I is dead," was quite rudimentary, the scripture and fellowship on this subject these last 40+ years have been more than a little enhancing to that speaking!

I read an account of how TA Sparks and WL had fellowship regarding the so-called "Ground of Oneness" back in the 1960s. Sparks shared about how it would be erroneous and unprofitable to go down that road and hang the movement's hat on. In the first meeting WL seemed to agree, but went back to his previous thinking some time afterward and stuck with it when getting with Sparks a second time. (These days I appreciate and enjoy Sparks' writings much, much more.)

[Evangelical]

As we can see, most people do not have a good reason why Lee's views on salvation and becoming god are heretical.

The only reasons offered so far are:
- "it's not in the bible" - knowledgeably theologians like Blackwell, Piper and others would disagree, they explain the teaching in a historical, positive and biblical way.
- "something about Lee not calling himself an apostle blah blah" - All of the reasons do not hinge upon what Lee actually wrote or said or was qualified, but upon irrelevant "Ad hominem" arguments, such as my credibility or my ability to use Google.

Furthermore, they do not have a good case to declare the orthodox views of salvation and deification as heretical, given that it is so entrenched in Christianity even in Protestantism (the Reformers believed in it, and it is said to be called "glorification" according to Piper). In Protestantism the idea is still there, somewhere, but has been overlooked and replaced with focusing mostly upon justification and the goal to be holy and without sin.

They are not aware of or deliberately ignore the wealth of material out there by scholars like Piper and Blackwell, in order to present Lee as a heretic, not realizing that they are arguing against a belief that the disciples of the disciples of the apostles held - that salvation is to become united with God. Lee himself said nothing that others have not said before, namely, early church fathers, the Reformers, and the beloved CS Lewis.

In fact, it can be shown that Lee's view of salvation is almost identical to the teachings of the Orthodox church:

The goal of salvation according to Orthodoxy is (from https://carm.org/what-is-theosis )

Such, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, is the final goal at which every Christian must aim: to become god, to attain theosis, ‘deification’ or ‘divinization’. For Orthodoxy our salvation and redemption mean our deification."


Lee also viewed deification as our salvation and redemption:

“If God is still God, and I am still I, then I have not been saved yet! " ~ Witness Lee

[UntoHim]

Mr. E., why did you just use a small "g" instead of a Capitol "G" like your One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age uses? Are you backing down a little bit on this? You better hope someone from Anaheim does't see this....if it gets back to your elders you're going to be in some hot water!

So you're going to keep insisting that "theosis" or "divination" equals "glorification"? Your Acting God never made this correlation, so I don't understand why you insist on this obvious blunder. No, Blackwell didn't say this and neither did Piper. (and neither did Matt Slick in the reference you gave us) You are apparently not used to a careful reading of the views of educated, genuine and professional theologians (and who could blame a follower of Witness Lee for this).

Ok, let me try this one again. This is an open book test my brother! Please feel free to quote Witness Lee in your answer.
Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)

Sorry, but asking questions for clarifications of one's beliefs is not an ad hominem. (Neither is asking for somebody to clarify their beliefs regarding the undisputed leader of a movement...but I'll let you slide on that one for now).
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Mr. E., why did you just use a small "g" instead of a Capitol "G" like your One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age uses? Are you backing down a little bit on this? You better hope someone from Anaheim does't see this....if it gets back to your elders you're going to be in some hot water!-

I should have used capital G yes to write -

As we can see, most people do not have a good reason why Lee's views on salvation and becoming God are heretical.

I am not aware of any rule that we must use capital G.

The psalms uses little g and so did Witness Lee sometimes in his books.

Since there is only one God, and "God" is not God's name, if we say god or God it does not matter. Jews have rules about these things.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]
So you're going to keep insisting that "theosis" or "divination" equals "glorification"? Your Acting God never made this correlation, so I don't understand why you insist on this obvious blunder. No, Blackwell didn't say this and neither did Piper. (and neither did Matt Slick in the reference you gave us) You are apparently not used to a careful reading of the views of educated, genuine and professional theologians (and who could blame a follower of Witness Lee for this).

Piper did indeed equate them in his article:

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)

Reading this in plain English, it says:

The process of transformation is a reality - it's called glorification in the West, and deification/theosis in the East.

Piper is equating them and putting the differences down to a different in terminology:
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” but is using the terminology of 2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:29, “Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” He is pressing the destiny and the glory of being a brother of the second person of the Trinity, and “sharing in his nature.”47



But I know there is a difference, and here is where I disagree with Piper (and agree with Lee) - I wrote a post about it earlier, and wrote:

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?).


Piper's article does two things:
a) shows the idea of deification is a biblical reality, and not such a heresy as some say it is. So it is incorrect to say "it isn't in the bible", if theologians like Piper endorse it.
b) Praises Augustine. Praise for Augustine and the doctrine of becoming God amounts to endorsement of Orthodox beliefs. Piper seems to endorse the beliefs and then equate them to glorification.

I disagree with Piper that it is the same as glorification, I posted about this before. What is remarkable to me is how positive Piper is towards Augustine and the general idea of transformation to become like God.

Piper writes:

My present understanding would go like this: the ultimate end of creation is neither being nor seeing, but delighting and displaying.

So the goal of salvation is to delight and display God. Where have I heard that before? That's right, Witness Lee.

"delight and display" = "enjoy and express".

The goal of salvation is to enjoy and express God. Or "We were created by God as a tripartite man with a spirit, a soul, and a body for us to contain, enjoy, and express God"

So Piper and Witness Lee and the EOC basically agree. They all see something more to salvation than merely getting to heaven when we die or escaping hell. They affirm what Athanasius taught, and do not see him as a man who was orthodox most of the time (on the Trinity, etc) but heretical at other times (with becoming God).

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]
Ok, let me try this one again. This is an open book test my brother! Please feel free to quote Witness Lee in your answer.
Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)

When I get more time I will elaborate on this, and I don't think you will be disappointed

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry, but asking questions for clarifications of one's beliefs is not an ad hominem. (Neither is asking for somebody to clarify their beliefs regarding the undisputed leader of a movement...but I'll let you slide on that one for now).
-

Yes but you attached that to my credibility or not, which is ad hominem, or literally "arguing to the human".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I should have used capital G yes to write -

As we can see, most people do not have a good reason why Lee's views on salvation and becoming God are heretical.

I am not aware of any rule that we must use capital G.

The psalms uses little g and so did Witness Lee sometimes in his books.

Since there is only one God, and "God" is not God's name, if we say god or God it does not matter. Jews have rules about these things.

But the Greek authors didn't. They didn't use caps. 'Cept they weren't saying God. They were saying theos.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, let me try this one again. This is an open book test my brother! Please feel free to quote Witness Lee in your answer.
Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)
-

Now I can answer the question.

In Genesis we see that God gave life and His nature to His creation - He created Adam in His own image. This is also spoken of in Romans 1:20:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So there is a thing called the life and nature of God in His creation, eve the life God gives us as human beings (and first Adam) and the life God gives us as believers.

We partake of the life and nature of God that is not in the Godhead/Trinity, the one He gives to His creation. In other words, we share His life and nature but not His personality -we retain our own personality.

Then there is the life and nature of God in the Trinity, and we could call this God's personality or person.

Lee wrote "“Nevertheless, we must know that we do not share God's Person and cannot be worshipped"

In a follow up post I will go into a more formal definition of life and nature.

[Evangelical]

Now some more formal definitions of life and nature. These are partly dictionary definitions and paraphrases of Lee's ministry.

Life

• Life - life is the ability to live.
• God's life - His ability to live and exist as God.
• Human life - the ability of a human to live and exist as a human.

Example:

"God's life given to us" = "His ability to live forever given to us" = "Eternal life".


Nature

• Nature - the quality
• Quality - the totality of features and characteristics
• God's nature - the totality of God's features and characteristics.
• God's qualities - love, light, life, righteousness, oneness etc.

Examples:

"Partake of God's life" means:

• To receive the ability to live forever

"Partake of God's nature" means:

• To receive God's qualities including love, light life, righteousness etc.

With these definitions, we can see how we may share God's life and nature but not in the Godhead:

- God's life and nature in the Godhead is His own that no one else but a person of the Trinity may have.
- God's life and nature that He shares with us is the ability to live forever and His qualities that He gives us.

Comparing these two statements we can see that there are not two divine lives and natures but one divine life and nature.

- The ability to live forever is the same ability God has Himself - after giving us His ability to live, it does not become a different ability, that can exist apart from God.
- The nature that He gives us is the same nature that He Himself has - after giving us His nature it does not become a third nature, which is a confusion between man and God or a third nature.

The previous two statements are paraphrases of the iron in fire or tea-water, or Moses's burning bush analogies.

Sidenote:
Evangelical preachers think that the ability to live and have God's nature constitutes God performing improvements on the human condition, leading to a third nature and third life which if we take to its logical conclusion means it is able to exist and function apart from God (if it wants to). Using the iron-fire analogy this would be like the iron becoming a third substance - steel, which remains as steel when the fire is put out. In contrast, the doctrine of theosis is about human's partaking of God's life and nature without producing a third substance - if the fire would be removed from the iron, the iron is still iron, no steel is produced.

For anyone not familiar with the analogy, the iron represents humanity, the fire represents God. Iron becoming fire is heretical because it implies man becoming God in the Trinity/Godhead. Likewise - fire becoming iron, is heretical as it implies God in His person becoming man. Iron when heated, being indistinguishable from fire, however, is not a heretical belief, as long as the iron and the fire does not stop being iron and fire. Iron and fire becoming a third substance, steel, is a heretical belief because it implies a confusion between man and God. The iron and fire analogy was very helpful to me to understand the concepts and know when something is heretical and when it is not.