God's Eternal Purpose

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

He did and we were aware of the similarities when I was in the movement thirty years ago.

Do you know what kind of Church fathers did WL read? Latin? Eastern? What books did he read? In English or Chinese? I might be wrong, but I believe it was close to impossible for him to get a book on the Church fathers' faith that time.

BTW, since you were aware of the similarities, what Church fathers did you read? Did you find them useful? Can you recommend me any books?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Do you know what kind of Church fathers did WL read? Latin? Eastern? What books did he read? In English or Chinese? I might be wrong, but I believe it was close to impossible for him to get a book on the Church fathers' faith that time.

BTW, since you were aware of the similarities, what Church fathers did you read? Did you find them useful? Can you recommend me any books?

Lee loved Athanasius, because of his statement about "make man God."

Lee also had "helpers" who did much of his reading and research for him.

Here is an interesting story I just heard. After Lee died, LSM took groups of saints into his house during the trainings to see how the "MOTA" lived. During one such tour, a friend of mine happened to notice that some book(s) which were prominent in Lee's library were by an author noted to be heretical. The brother pointed this out to the LSM docent, who informed others, who quickly removed the book(s). He somewhat remembered that the book(s) was by Emanuel Swedenborg.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee loved Athanasius, because of his statement about "make man God."

Lee also had "helpers" who did much of his reading and research for him.

Here is an interesting story I just heard. After Lee died, LSM took groups of saints into his house during the trainings to see how the "MOTA" lived. During one such tour, a friend of mine happened to notice that some book(s) which were prominent in Lee's library were by an author noted to be heretical. The brother pointed this out to the LSM docent, who informed others, who quickly removed the book(s). He somewhat remembered that the book(s) was by Emanuel Swedenborg.

Thank you brother Ohio. To say the truth, when I just started attending the LRC, I also noticed some similarities, especially that of divinization. I thought, "They have this and we have this. They believe in this and we believe in the same". That time I was not interested in religion, so I didn't care about details.

BTW, there were quite a number of the early Church Fathers who wrote about theosis: Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-190), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395), Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430), Maximus the Confessor, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and of course, Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373).

Wikipedia shares their quotes on divinization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

For example, Irenaeus wrote:

"The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."

"'For we cast blame upon [God], because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High."

"For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God."

I trust Irenaeus and other Church Fathers' doctrine on theosis because of three reasons:

1 They were among first Christians who kept the tradition and were closer to Christ, Apostles, and the inner knowledge of Christian faith. For example, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp (AD 69– 155-160's) who was a disciple of the apostle John. So Irenaeus might know what was not included in the Gospels.

2 Theosis is not one man's idea. Lee could be wrong. A certain Church Father could be mistaken. But there were several Church Fathers from different localities who shared the same teaching. That's why it seems trustworthy for me. Probably, the Church Fathers got their knowledge from different apostles, but their views and teachings on theosis were similar.

3 It seems to be logical. Man, according to the Bible, is 'made in the image and likeness of God.' After Adam's fall, the image and likeness were corrupted. God sent His Son to redeem us, i.e. restore His image in each of us (which is theosis). So it's a logical step, God's plan and purpose of our life: the attainment of likeness of God, union with God or reconciliation with God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Thank you brother Ohio. To say the truth, when I just started attending the LRC, I also noticed some similarities, especially that of divinization. I thought, "They have this and we have this. They believe in this and we believe in the same".

The problem I have with divination / deification is that the Bible never says it, and had ample opportunity to do so.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

For example, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp (AD 69– 155-160's) who was a disciple of the apostle John. So Irenaeus might know what was not included in the Gospels.

But he was still limited to the knowledge of his day, and could say something crazy, like this:

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four
corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four
gospels."

Originally Posted by ICA

2 Theosis is not one man's idea. Lee could be wrong. A certain Church Father could be mistaken. But there were several Church Fathers from different localities who shared the same teaching. That's why it seems trustworthy for me. Probably, the Church Fathers got their knowledge from different apostles, but their views and teachings on theosis were similar.

But if we are sticking to Lee and his conception of GEP I don't think the word "Theosis" fits.

I never heard him use the term. And when I was in, The Shouters never once used the term.

But I left early, and Lee said many things since.

Does anyone else out here ever remember Lee using the term theosis?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

But he was still limited to the knowledge of his day, and could say something crazy, like this:

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four
corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four
gospels."

It was written in the 2nd century for people who lived in the 2nd century. And I believe they did not find it crazy.

BTW, the Church Fathers could be errant in their teachings. Nobody takes their books for absolute. But the test is simple:

1) Is it principal, important and related to the Faith?
2) Is it according to the Bible?
3) What did other Church Fathers write on the same topic?

I don't know how ancient Christians took that phrase, but for me, it doesn't reveal any principal information about the Christian Faith. So I (who live in 2014) don't find that phrase important. St Irenaeus is worth reading but not so that to know about four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe.

Originally Posted by awareness

But if we are sticking to Lee and his conception of GEP I don't think the word "Theosis" fits.

I never heard him use the term. And when I was in, The Shouters never once used the term.

But I left early, and Lee said many things since.

Does anyone else out here ever remember Lee using the term theosis?

I think one of the brothers can explain.

Originally Posted by zeek

Theosis as you have described it is very similar if not identical to what Witness lee taught.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Does anyone else out here ever remember Lee using the term theosis?

Sure, it was all about GBMTMMGILANBNITGH. We heard it over and over. Hundreds of times, after the chaos of the Rebellions/Quarantines, which followed the endless winds and waves of the New Way.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Do you know what kind of Church fathers did WL read? Latin? Eastern? What books did he read? In English or Chinese? I might be wrong, but I believe it was close to impossible for him to get a book on the Church fathers' faith that time.

BTW, since you were aware of the similarities, what Church fathers did you read? Did you find them useful? Can you recommend me any books?

Witness Lee cited several of the apostolic fathers usually with respect to how they confirmed his theology. It must be said that Lee denied that he had a theology. In fact he denied that he even had an interpretation of the Bible. He would frequently remind us that he always preached nothing but the pure word of God. Further, he did not receive his theology from the church fathers or anybody else on God's green earth. No. It was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God. But, from time to time, when he was in a serious reflective mood, he would tell us about how his teaching was in harmony with the ancient theologians. For example, Ignatius used the term "economy of God." Of course, so did Paul.

I left the LRC 28 years ago, so it's a bit difficult for me to name every book I read of the apostolic fathers. Mostly I read secondary sources. In general, the fathers were interpreting Jesus in terms of Greek philosophy and Neoplatonism. Thus, theology was born. Writing the New Testament in Greek itself had a Hellenizing effect on Christianity. This is clearly illustrated by the representation of Christ as the Logos in John 1:1. Christianity became a synthesis of Jewish and pagan ideas. Nee and Lee were theologically minded individuals very much on the Greek side. This is evident in books like "The All-Inclusive Christ" in which can be seen the influence of Plato's "Realm of Ideas." To Plato every actual thing is a shadow of the ultimate thing which exists in the realm of ideas. For Nee and Lee, every positive existing thing is a shadow of Christ.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee cited several of the apostolic fathers usually with respect to how they confirmed his theology. It must be said that Lee denied that he had a theology. In fact he denied that he even had an interpretation of the Bible. He would frequently remind us that he always preached nothing but the pure word of God. Further, he did not receive his theology from the church fathers or anybody else on God's green earth. No. It was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God. But, from time to time, when he was in a serious reflective mood, he would tell us about how his teaching was in harmony with the ancient theologians. For example, Ignatius used the term "economy of God." Of course, so did Paul.

Thank you Zeek. That was a revelation to me.

It seems that WL was a really well-read man, not only in the Church Fathers but also in Swedenborg. I'd call him a man of knowledge. But at the same time I don't mistaken knowledge for wisdom. And “the highest form of wisdom is kindness”.

You know, I don't really understand Witness Lee. If his knowledge was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God, why did he need to read all those authors? If I had this "authentic conversation" with God, then all other authors and their books would pale into insignificance.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Thank you Zeek. That was a revelation to me.

It seems that WL was a really well-read man, not only in the Church Fathers but also in Swedenborg. I'd call him a man of knowledge. But at the same time I don't mistaken knowledge for wisdom. And “the highest form of wisdom is kindness”.

You know, I don't really understand Witness Lee. If his knowledge was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God, why did he need to read all those authors? If I had this "authentic conversation" with God, then all other authors and their books would pale into insignificance.

Maybe God spoke to him through the Bible and the other authors he read. Don't the EO bishops, priests and mystics read?

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe God spoke to him through the Bible and the other authors he read. Don't the EO bishops, priests and mystics read?

I assume you're being sarcastic here. The Fathers not only read but they were good scholars and cited their sources. Unlike Lee.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe God spoke to him through the Bible and the other authors he read. Don't the EO bishops, priests and mystics read?

Weren't it you who said:

Originally Posted by zeek

He would frequently remind us that he always preached nothing but the pure word of God. Further, he did not receive his theology from the church fathers or anybody else on God's green earth. No. It was directly from the Spirit and the Word of God.

The EO bishops, priests, and mystics read, but they didn't claim that they received all their knowledge only from the Spirit and the Word of God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Weren't it you who said:


The EO bishops, priests, and mystics read, but they didn't claim that they received all their knowledge only from the Spirit and the Word of God.

OK. Remember I'm basing my statements on recollection of what I heard from Witness Lee 28 to 40 years ago. So if anything I state is factually incorrect somebody please tell me. Let me clarify further. Lee admitted that he was "standing on the shoulders of others." So he did not claim that everything came from the Spirit and the Word. He claimed he had checked out everything he taught with the Spirit and the Word. But, he also claimed that he went further in terms of recovering the vision of the GEP. Did any of the EO recognized theologians claim anything like that? As far as his teaching which up to now seems similar to theosis, he did not say that he got the teaching from them but rather that after he received the teaching he read them and they confirmed it.

Do you claim that theosis comes from the Eucharist and the true Eucharist can only be partaken by the EO church members and therefore they are the only ones experiencing theosis? WL did not claim that theosis could only occur in the LRC although in many ways he implied that it was most likely to occur there if anywhere. Not everybody in the local churches was going to be an overcomer, but you had a better chance of being an overcomer if you were in the LRC.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Do you claim that theosis comes from the Eucharist and the true Eucharist can only be partaken by the EO church members and therefore they are the only ones experiencing theosis?

No, I don't. Theosis doesn't come from the Eucharist. And it doesn't come from the Church. We Christians get it by God's grace. But the Eucharist is a part of the process. You have to eat the Lord's flesh and drink His blood. And that's what the Eastern Orthodox Christians have been doing for almost 2 000 years. Will they experience theosis? It's not a correct question. We are not talking about some magic pills. We are talking about Sacraments. Theosis is the goal and process; and the Eucharist is a component of the process. Besides, theosis is "becoming by grace what God is by nature". I believe the Orthodox Church is the original ancient Christian Church founded by Christ and apostles, not a medieval modification like Roman Catholics nor a modern sects like the LRC. So, we don't claim that God's grace belong to the Church and her members. It belongs to God and it's only Him who decides who will experience theosis. The life and future of an Orthodox Christian is in God's hands. It's the same about any other Christian. It's not his or her church or sect but God Who makes the decision. Therefore, it's only God knows who will be transformed and who will not.

Originally Posted by zeek

But, he also claimed that he went further in terms of recovering the vision of the GEP. Did any of the EO recognized theologians claim anything like that?

I am not aware of that. The Bible is the book of the Church. It was compiled by the Church Fathers long before Lee, Nee and even Luther. So the Bible was compiled by the Church Fathers and it were the Church Fathers who commented it. Our theologians keep the Holy Tradition received from the Fathers.

Just a few links about the Church history:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7053
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rthodox_Church Wiki
http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history (Time line)
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history.aspx