Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hank Hanegraaff, Walter Martin's Greedy Judas, the Fake Bible Answer Man

If only it were true that, theosis were true. Then there might be hope for bro Hank.

[Sons to Glory!]

So in a paragraph or less, can someone summarize what this whole discussion was really about, bottom-line? (be a good "attorney" and do a very brief synopsis of both sides)

The shorter the better . . . (and if this can't be succinctly done, I don't think it's worth knowing)

As radio personality Dennis Prager says, "Clarity is better than agreement."

Thanks!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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)

Mr E.
Your two posts do not even begin to address the question at hand. Your posts conveniently left out the operative word - BECOME. To partake is not to become. To share is not to become. Witness Lee said WE BECOME GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE.

Witness Lee, knowingly, intentionally, deliberately used a specific word/term that has huge, far-reaching theological implications. Of course, as has been duly noted, Witness Lee was no theologian. He really had no business delving into such theological matters. And the more that he tried to explain away his blunders, the more he dug himself into a deeper hole. Now his followers are left to follow the same pattern - Dig and dig until you confuse the matter so badly that it becomes just plain silly.
-

[Evangelical]

This is a really silly argument because Athanasius used the term "become God" so perhaps Lee was being consistent with that?:

Athanasius said:

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

So it was Athanasius who first knowingly, intentionally, deliberately used a specific word/term that has huge, far-reaching theological implications.

Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome, Gregory of Nazianzus and others also used the term "become".

Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology also says: It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.

So maybe you should take it up with historians and early church fathers and the theologians about the use of the term, because the term is ubiquitous in Christianity.

In your previous post you interpreted "become" as two Divine lifes and natures, which amounts to saying there are two God's. That is your interpretation that there are two God's, not mine or Lee's or Athanasiu's. I don't know any Christian who would entertain the thought that there are two God's. Instead perhaps there are different meanings of the word "become", but only one life and nature.

[Sons to Glory!]

So Evengelical - can you summarize your particular perspective of this topic in a short to medium paragraph?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So Evengelical - can you summarize your particular perspective of this topic in a short to medium paragraph?

Which particular topic did you have in mind?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Which particular topic did you have in mind?

The theosis topic.

There have been pages and pages of replies and counter-replies that have been hard (at least for me) to follow. Hoping to get something concise I can grasp more easily. Thanks.