Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature?

[Zezima]

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

Yes, sure. E.g. we could say that we are our parents, yet we are not our parents.

We are made in the image and likeness of God. We are also born of His Spirit. We are even to be transformed from glory to glory. Peter says we are partakers of His nature.

The entire basis of our belief system as Christians is the Bible, and more specifically that which the Spirit of God has decided to inspire in the many diverse writers of scripture. Consider all that God could have inspired. I believe this was specifically decided by the counsel of God. Many verses (and entire books) confirm this (e.g. 2 Peter 1.21 or John 15.26).

So we should content ourselves with what we have received, and not go beyond what is written. There much danger lies using speculations and inferences.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So we should content ourselves with what we have received, and not go beyond what is written. There much danger lies using speculations and inferences.

I understand the difficulty of growing up with a mindset that seems to fill a void and make so much sense. Eventually one might say that our minds become incorrectly "hard-wired" as a result.

Let me use an xample which affected me, my family, my friends, almost all my neighbors, in fact I daresay the entirety of my social interactions until I started college. We all held this same simple belief. It was obviously not in the Bible, but we were convinced it was. Every single figure of authority I knew in my life purported this "fundamental" truth. It was accepted as gospel truth, and never questioned. It was around for so long, that it just had to be true. It also became the foundation of our entire system of beliefs and practices.

I could go on and on concerning this matter, but let me just get to the point. If Jesus was God, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, then Mary is the Mother of God, and we should worship her as the queen of heaven. Do you see how this works? Now substitute some of Lee's exclusive constructs.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... If Jesus was God, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, then Mary is the Mother of God, and we should worship her as the queen of heaven. Do you see how this works? Now substitute some of Lee's exclusive constructs.

Great point, Ohio. Circular reasoning.

"Circular reasoning occurs when the end of an argument comes back to the beginning without having proven itself."

If you find yourself scratching your head on Lee-isms, this is likely why.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Zezima

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

Wouldn’t that depend on your definition of “nature”? We all know Lee used language differently from commonly understood meanings.

Do you mean physically “born of”? Or spiritually?

Physical “nature”? DNA? Or what?

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Zezima

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

I echo the others in the question of what does "nature" mean? As others have noted, Lee liked to use a word that sometimes didn't have any real meaning. For example, he taught that the "nature" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is death. Huh? How do trees have a death "nature"? It's meaningless.

And I'll repeat along with them, being born of someone still means you have your OWN life. We are born of our parents, but we don't have our parent's life or nature. We have our own life/nature.

However, I think there's something else mixed in here. Others can talk more/better about this, but I think what this drills down to is what the Bible says about how we become sons of God. There are threads out there about this on the forum (to anyone reading - has Nigel Tomes written anything on this topic?), but I haven't dug into it deeply so I'll just say a small amount here.

Galatians 4:4 says plainly we are redeemed that we might receive "adoption to sonship". The Greek word there involves adoption.

The Recovery Version leaves out "adoption" in that verse and just says "receive the sonship". But it's "adoption to sonship". And as we all know, adopted sons don't have the same "nature" as the father who adopted them. Lee's errors build upon themselves, and I think this is one of them. Numerous errors to peel back.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

There are threads out there about this on the forum (to anyone reading - has Nigel Tomes written anything on this topic?), but I haven't dug into it deeply so I'll just say a small amount here.

Galatians 4:4 says plainly we are redeemed that we might receive "adoption to sonship". The Greek word there involves adoption.

The Recovery Version leaves out "adoption" in that verse and just says "receive the sonship". But it's "adoption to sonship". And as we all know, adopted sons don't have the same "nature" as the father who adopted them. Lee's errors build upon themselves, and I think this is one of them. Numerous errors to peel back.

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? This article address the thread topic -- "becoming God."

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s ATTACK ON ADOPTION This article addresses Paul's teachings on legal adoption. WL was totally wrong on this one. For starters, according to Roman Law, which Paul used to speak of our own relationship with God, adopted sons were chosen. Adopted sons had more rights than birth sons. Birth sons could be disowned, but adopted sons could never be disowned. This paper detoxed me from WL's leavened teachings on the subject.

[Zezima]

This is all fascinating, and I agree. It's a very subtle jump to conclusion or inference. God's economy is one of the harder doctrines for me to shake. From what the word says, all things are being united in Christ (Eph 1:10) It's hard to grasp what that means, and Witness Lee's God's Economy fills that void.

So what does it mean? If god' isn't making us the same as he in life & nature, what is he doing?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is all fascinating, and I agree. It's a very subtle jump to conclusion or inference. God's economy is one of the harder doctrines for me to shake. From what the word says, all things are being united in Christ (Eph 1:10) It's hard to grasp what that means, and Witness Lee's God's Economy fills that void.

So what does it mean? If god' isn't making us the same as he in life & nature, what is he doing?

I might not be able to help with everything you bring up there, but I can say a little more about God's economy, and it might tie into the rest too, we'll see.

As a church kid, I understand how all-encompassing God's economy feels. But the more I thought about it, for me God's economy ultimately went nowhere. So God's dispensing Himself into us. For what? Once we have His life and nature, what happens? What do we do then? Do we just exist bopping around reveling in the fact that we have His life and nature? The goal made no sense to me.

Let's look again at what the Bible says in the main verse LSM references about God's economy. This is the Recovery Version, but it's what people are used to when working through teachings, so it will be fine for this purpose.

1 Timothy 1:3-5
3 Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things
4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.
5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith;

Look at the structure of the bolded portion. Is Paul saying not to teach anything but God's economy (which is what LSM says it says)? Or is Paul saying not to teach things that produce questionings rather than producing God's economy?

By the way I've worded that you can probably guess. Lee, grammatically, got the sentence wrong. This portion is saying "hey, don't teach different things because when you teach different things it produces questionings. Rather, teach the right things which produce God's economy." If you look at the Greek, God's economy is what is produced by the right things being taught. It is not the thing that is supposed to be taught.

The ministry says over and over and over again "Paul told Timothy not to teach anything other than God's economy". But that's, plainly and simply, not what the verses say. God's economy is produced, not taught.

Ok. Let's look at the same verses again, but with a different part bolded.

1 Timothy 1:3-5
3 Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things
4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.
5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith;

Paul was writing Timothy, telling him in verse 3 to "charge" certain people not to act a certain way, but to act the right way so God's economy would be produced.

And then in verse 5 he says "the end of the charge [from verse 3] is love".

"The end" here means like "the goal" or "the point" or "the reason for".

The whole point of teaching the healthy things that produce God's economy is.....love.

Did Witness Lee ever manage to squeeze much of "love" into his "God dispensing Himself" doctrine? Not that I recall. But the Bible says that's the whole point of the charge that produces God's economy.

Ok. Last thing. If God's economy isn't the thing we are supposed to be teaching, but Paul is so concerned with teaching the right and healthy things so that God's economy would be produced, did Paul say anywhere what the right and healthy teachings are?

He sure did. A few lines down in verse 15.

1 Timothy 1:15
15 Faithful is the word and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.

The faithful word worthy of all acceptance (that's right and healthy if I ever heard it) is that Christ Jesus came into the world to save us sinners.

The healthy teaching that produces God's economy is the gospel. That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That Jesus died on the cross for you and for me. That our debt has been paid.

This is what the Bible says about God's economy. Teach the genuine gospel and God's economy, the end of which is love, will be produced.

The gospel is that God so loved us that He sent His Son to die for us. And we are charged to turn around and love others because of the love with which we have been loved. Love your enemies, love your neighbors, love your brothers and sisters. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. These are the greatest commandments.

That is some of what God is doing. Asking us to learn to obey Him in these commandments to love Him and love others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is all fascinating, and I agree. It's a very subtle jump to conclusion or inference. God's economy is one of the harder doctrines for me to shake. From what the word says, all things are being united in Christ (Eph 1:10) It's hard to grasp what that means, and Witness Lee's God's Economy fills that void.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Ok. Let's look at the same verses again, but with a different part bolded.

1 Timothy 1:3-5
3 Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things
4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.
5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith;

Paul was writing Timothy, telling him in verse 3 to "charge" certain people not to act a certain way, but to act the right way so God's economy would be produced.

And then in verse 5 he says "the end of the charge [from verse 3] is love".

"The end" here means like "the goal" or "the point" or "the reason for".

The whole point of teaching the healthy things that produce God's economy is.....love.

This line of scriptural reasoning was extremely helpful to me in 2004. When LSM decided to quarantine / excommunicate the Midwest LC's, we examined these verses. THE GOAL OF THE CHARGE IS LOVE! How can LSM promote "God's Economy" and yet be so void of Christian love? They missed the most important point! Hence they missed everything!

Without the basics of Christian love, LSM/DCP was thus fully justified in their own minds to condemn us for using contemporary Christian music in our young people's conferences. LSM/DCP was also fully justified to divide all the Midwest LC's by setting up training sessions to assist zealous local malcontents to file lawsuits against their own LC.

God is love. Love began the Gospel, and love is the goal of the Gospel.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Zezima

So what does it mean? If god' isn't making us the same as he in life & nature, what is he doing?

Why don’t you ask Him?

He already did his work. He sent His only Son, a man without sin, as a sacrifice to save His people from their sins. Then Jesus said, “it is finished”. Did you ever hear/read a gospel message by Witness Lee?

According to Lee, this is the “low gospel”. The gospel of Jesus Christ wasn’t good enough for Lee. He embellished God’s word with his own spin and put the “Lee” name on it. The problem with “Lee’s ministry” is you have to study Lee, and the Word falls by the wayside.

IMHO we always need to read the Bible with a view of description vs. prescription. Ask yourself “is this passage describing an historic event, or prescribing a commandment to be obeyed or followed today in my walk with the Lord?”

Being the “same as God in life and and nature” is neither a prescription or description.

Trapped is right. Lee’s teachings are a mess. This one in particular is, if not blatant heresy, borderline heresy, or a non-Biblical Christian teaching. It “sounds” Biblical but in fact, it is not.

Nell

[Trapped]

All this, by the way, perfectly matches what Paul says in Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 4:14
That we may be no longer little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching in the sleight of men, in craftiness with a view to a system of error,

I mean seriously. You asked one question about one teaching of Lee's, and to unpack and explain it so that it makes any sense at all, we have to trace it along and untangle one teaching after another that each one is hinged upon.

This is a literal system of error. This is what the Bible means by that phrase.

Lee's ministry was an overarching tapestry of teachings that had to be understood in the self-contained context of itself. Everything hinged on everything else, everything was built upon some other understanding, some other pillar, some other foundational teaching of his. No wonder people can't get out! No wonder they are forced to "get out of their mind" to handle trying to untangle it all! We had to deal with dispensing, then our status in relation to God, then a life and nature concept, then adoption, then God's economy, all of which are huge intricate teachings of Lee's. But the answer to the first thing can't make sense unless you untangle all those stops along the way.

And this is just sprung from one question!

Thanks to UntoHim for providing a place where people can have a hope of working through Lee's system of error.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Nell

[/B]
Why don’t you ask Him?

He already did his work. He sent His only Son, a man without sin, as a sacrifice to save His people from their sins. Then Jesus said, “it is finished”. Did you ever hear/read a gospel message by Witness Lee?

According to Lee, this is the “low gospel”. The gospel of Jesus Christ wasn’t good enough for Lee. He embellished God’s word with his own spin and put the “Lee” name on it. The problem with “Lee’s ministry” is you have to study Lee, and the Word falls by the wayside.

IMHO we always need to read the Bible with a view of description vs. prescription. Ask yourself “is this passage describing an historic event, or prescribing a commandment to be obeyed or followed today in my walk with the Lord?”

Being the “same as God in life and and nature” is neither a prescription or description.

Trapped is right. Lee’s teachings are a mess. This one in particular is, if not blatant heresy, borderline heresy, or a non-Biblical Christian teaching. It “sounds” Biblical but in fact, it is not.

Nell

So then, what is gods economy since it can be produced?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The healthy teaching that produces God's economy is the gospel. That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That Jesus died on the cross for you and for me. That our debt has been paid.

This is what the Bible says about God's economy. Teach the genuine gospel and God's economy, the end of which is love, will be produced.

Originally Posted by Zezima

So then, what is gods economy since it can be produced?

Remember that Paul was a disciple of Jesus, whose central teaching was to give to those who could not repay you in this age. Remember the parable of the Samaritan? They were talking about love to one's neighbour. Jesus gave a demonstration by parable, of a man who gave with no thought of return. He gave because of love. And he gave to a nearby stranger, who would never repay him.

But where do we see Paul echo this? My "crucial verse" (ha-ha) is found in Galatians at the climax of the council in Jerusalem, where the leaders of the mission there invest Paul with the outreach to the nations, "Only they said to remember the poor" (2:10). What did Paul say? Did he clap his hands on his ears and say, "No, that's not God's economy!"? No, he said he was eager to do that very thing! Imagine that! Why? Maybe because it was God's economy.

Furthermore, Paul goes into two whole chapters of 2 Corinthians (8 and 9) telling them, "It's better to give than to receive" and "he who gathered much had no excess, who gathered little had no lack."

We love not in word but in deed. By sharing. In this we fulfill the royal law, to love one another, says James. Which of you, having food or clothes sends your brother away naked and hungry? No, we share. (2:8,15,16). The one "work" James consistently stresses is generosity toward those who lack.

Now of course this is an idea, a theory, a reading, or interpretation. But so is that of WL, and I argue that this is more well-grounded in scripture, and departs less from the text, than WL's version. Where does Paul teach intensification? Nowhere. If so, why did WL say that it was part of God's economy that Paul wanted Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and produce? Clearly he's straining to put together concepts that are not together in the text.

But "remember the poor" is heavily cited in scriptural text from Proverbs and Psalms and Leviticus right up through the gospels and epistles. And look at Acts: Paul returns to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" in 24:17. Nothing about mastication or dispensing or enjoyment. (Actually, the RecV translates Paul and Barnabas' alms-giving in Acts 12:25 as 'dispensing'!) Or Zacchaeus - "Behold, the half of my goods I give to the poor". What did Jesus reply? "Now the kingdom of God is come to this house".

It's a fairly consistent line in the scriptural narrative, right up through the gospels. And Paul is remaining firmly in this line.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? This article address the thread topic -- "becoming God."

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s ATTACK ON ADOPTION This article addresses Paul's teachings on legal adoption. WL was totally wrong on this one. For starters, according to Roman Law, which Paul used to speak of our own relationship with God, adopted sons were chosen. Adopted sons had more rights than birth sons. Birth sons could be disowned, but adopted sons could never be disowned. This paper detoxed me from WL's leavened teachings on the subject.

Those are it, thanks. Tomes' paper on adoption is very long, but I think the gist can be gotten fairly quickly. I just wanted to add after reading through some of that thread that I don't mean to pretend the aspect of being "born again" isn't in scripture. It very much is, of course. But Lee totally discounted the adoption aspect that is also there, and I think that error of omission made him unbalanced on this topic to the point of leading to this unhealthy teaching of "becoming God in life and nature". The adoption side of it helps keep our understanding upright and not upside down.