LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? Nigel Tomes

[UntoHim]

***Note from Admin: Every effort was made to keep this document in its original format, however due to limits of the forum software some of the original format could not be retained. As soon as possible, the original PDF document will be posted at the end of this post***

The Local Church’s Links with Eastern Orthodoxy
Nigel Tomes

Most current “Local Church” members are unaware of the past links between the “Local Church” and Eastern Orthodoxy in the US. Given Witness Lee’s belated adoption of Orthodoxy’s “deification” [i.e., “man becomes God”] and LSM’s defense of this dogma via its Affirmation & Critique journal, it is interesting to trace the “intersecting paths” of the “Local Church” and Eastern Orthodoxy in the US.Consider the following entry from Wikipedia on the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC):

“The [US] Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) [traces]...its origins in the Jesus People
movement, particularly as an amalgam of Jack Sparks' 'Christian World Liberation Front'
and a component of Watchman Nee’s 'Local Church,' that came to embrace an
Eastern tradition of Christianity.” [Wikipedia]

What's the Back Story?

This suggests one source of the Evangelical Orthodox Church’s membership was the “Local Church,” of Watchman Nee and his protégé, Witness Lee. This raises the question—what is the back story? How did “a component of Watchman Nee’s 'Local Church’” come “to embrace an Eastern tradition of Christianity,” represented by the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC)? The present author does not have the answer; our purpose is to point out a few facts in the hope that others can add their insights. The quote above explicitly mentions “Watchman Nee’s 'Local Church;” in a US context that likely refers to the Local Church movement of W. Lee. It also names LSM’s nemesis, Jack Sparks, author of The Mind-Benders: A Look at Current Cults (Thomas Nelson, 1977). There are other names too.

The path of another EOC principal, Peter (‘Pete’) E. Gillquist is recounted by Wikipedia:

“The Campus Crusade missionary Peter E. Gillquist (1938-2012)...established in 1973 a network of house churches throughout the US, aiming to restore a primitive form of Christianity. Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks (1928-2009), Jon Braun, & J.R. Ballew stood in a circle and self-ordained each other while creating an entity called the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO).”

Note the major players behind the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO) which morphed into EOC, and later still into the Antiochian Orthodox Christian [AOC]--Peter Gillquist (1938-2012), Jack Sparks (1928-2010), Jon Braun, and J.R. Ballew. These people desired to ‘recover’ the early church; their quest led them on a particular trajectory which would later intersect with the ‘Local Church’:

“Researching the historical basis of the Christian faith, Gillquist and his colleagues found sources for this restoration in the writings of the early Church Fathers. This led the group to practice a more liturgical form of worship than in their previous evangelical background. In 1977, first contact with the Eastern Orthodox Church was initiated through...(Karl) John Bartke, who introduced them to Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. In 1979, the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) was organized...The belief [in]... apostolic succession led most members of the EOC to join the Antiochian Orthodox Christian [AOC] Archdiocese of North America in 1987...” [Wikipedia]

Tracing common Roots—the Jesus People & Campus Crusade

Let’s try tracing the roots of this US branch of the Orthodox Church [NCAO, EOC & AOC] and their intersection with the “Local Church” of W. Nee & W. Lee.

1. Both the Local Church & the ‘Evangelical Orthodox Church’ had roots in the “Jesus Movement”

Witness Lee arrived on the US West coast during the “Jesus People Movement.” Some “Jesus People” converts joined the Local Church. Witness Lee liked to point out “Big George” as an example; recounting that he first attended meetings wearing a blanket and sandals (or was it bare feet?).

2. Leaders of both the Local Church & the EOC Church came out of Campus Crusade.

According to reports heard over the years, some current ‘Local Church’ leaders (e.g. Dan Towle & others?) were engaged in Christian work on US campuses in the late 1960s—with para-church organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) [“Campus Cru”]. Significantly, during that same era (~1966-68), Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Jon Braun, etc worked with Campus Crusade [CCC]. Some of these CCC workers’ trajectory led them into Orthodoxy. Reportedly, during that era, some of these CCC workers were colleagues &/or associates of current LSM leaders, like Dan Towle & Co. [Exact details are unclear; perhaps others can supply in more details on the Campus Crusade years.]

Campus Crusade Workers’ Quest for the Church

God was stirring among Campus Crusade workers producing a quest for the Church. For Dan Towle (& others) this led to the Local Church. Others’ path was different. Jon Braun recounts: “The next summer (1968?) Jon Braun resigned from Crusade staff, as did Dick Ballew, Pete Gillquist, Gordon Walker...& scores of others within the next few months. This startled the UCSB group. At the Crusade conferences held in Arrowhead Springs [CCC HQ in the San Bernardino Mts.] that summer, several students drove up the mountain...each evening to meet with Jon [Braun] at his home. There they heard about the grace of God & Jon's concept of house churches, based on the model of communities in the New Testament. This was the passion of those who had resigned from Campus Crusade.”

Braun recalls “a conference at UCLA held over Christmas break [Dec. 1968?). At this gathering students and ex-Crusade staff from all over the West Coast came to hear Jon Braun, Dick Ballew, Pete Gillquist & others... Speaker after speaker urged a return to the life and practices of the New Testament Church. They promised exciting new alternatives to the ‘establishment’ and boring denominational order of Christendom.”

Their desire echoed in other “seekers” who flocked to hear Witness Lee & check out the “Local Church life.” Again Jon Braun writes: “We began the process of examining our purposes, our motives and our goals. We became enthralled with the writings of Watchman Nee who had fomented an alternate-church movement in China. We tried to copy the methods he & his followers espoused. Eager to be involved, others on this same journey moved to Santa Barbara [CA]. Jon & Mary Ellen Braun, Dick & Sylvia Ballew, & many other families arrived along with numerous single people. Christians came from as far away as Atlanta, but mostly from various points in California. The goal was to experience together what we thought to be the New Testament Church. It was based on a model of free expression along with strong leadership.” [Jon Braun]

That influx of “seekers” was matched within the “Local Church movement.” Evidently the two movements tapped into the same move of the Holy Spirit; both coalesced in California (Santa Barbara vs. LA/Anaheim). Both movements sought to re-discover the ‘original church” and both drew inspiration from Watchman Nee’s writings.

The link with Watchman Nee is evident in the Wikipedia entry saying: “The Evangelical Orthodox Church [traces]...its origins in the Jesus People movement, particularly as an amalgam of Jack Sparks' 'Christian World Liberation Front' and a component of Watchman Nee’s 'Local Church'...” [Wikipedia]

It would be unsurprising if some EOC principals interacted with the Local Church in the early days. Braun says, “We tried to copy the methods [Watchman Nee] & his followers espoused.” And that statement also describes the endeavor of Local Church members in that era. One would expect some interaction between the two groups. [Again, we don’t have information; maybe some readers do.]

We ask:

· Did any of these people--Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Jon Braun, etc.—attend Witness Lee’s conferences or join in meetings of the “Local Church” during these early years?
· If they did attend Witness Lee’s conferences &/or Local Church meetings (as seems likely) were Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Jon Braun, etc considered as “good material,” “potential leaders” or “effective workers” who ought to “see the vision” & joined or remained in the Local Church?
· Were there any feelings of rivalry/competition between the Local Church and the EOC?
· Were Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Jon Braun & Co., responsible for leading some Christians out of the Local Churches and into Eastern Orthodoxy? This possibility is suggested by the statement: “The Evangelical Orthodox Church [traces]...its origins in...a component of Watchman Nee’s 'Local Church'...”
· Did Local Church leaders (at the time) feel some potential members of the Local Church were “diverted” from the Local Church into (what became) the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC)?

It seems likely that there were feelings of rivalry/competition between these two “trajectories,” which resembled each other (despite their differences). Perhaps this rivalry produced “bad blood” on both sides—as evidenced (in part) by Jack Sparks’ book: “The Mind-Benders,” vilifying the Local Church. If Jack Sparks’ “The Mind-Benders” was motivated (in part, perhaps) by jealousy &/or competition, those same feelings were likely echoed in some corresponding sectors of the Local Church movement.

The “New Covenant Apostolic Order” (NCAO) 1973

This endeavor to restore the “original historical church,” took a path other than the “Local Church movement.” Jon Braun tells us that “In 1973, Jon [Braun] & Dick [Ballew] announced a meeting... These men, who saw the need for a more historically-based approach...announced that we were going to be a full-fledged Church...This is really where we stopped being a `fellowship,' & began to be a Church," Jon [Braun] recalls. At that time, the leaders, “Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Jon Braun, & J.R. Ballew stood in a circle and self-ordained each other while creating an entity called the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO).” Jon Braun continues, “our leaders along with Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Gordon Walker, Ken Berven & Ray Nethery, pulled together to become the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO).” No doubt the NCAO’s basis was the Bible plus the Church Fathers, with the liturgy & practices of Orthodoxy—infant baptism, the Eucharist, altar, robes & icons, plus the deification dogma. LSM’s Local Church leaders would also question their “self-ordination.”

From “Apostolic Order” to “Evangelical Orthodox Church” (EOC) 1979

Jon Braun continues the saga, saying, “By 1979, being part of an "[Apostolic] Order" was not working ...We swallowed hard & became a denomination in Feb., 1979: the ‘Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC).’ This bold move received wide newspaper coverage, including a piece in The New York Times. The NCAO days were over.”

From “Evangelical Orthodox Church” to “Antiochian Orthodox Church” 1987

To complete the story, in 1987, the 17 parishes and about 2,000 people of the Evangelical Orthodox Church were received into the Antiochian Archdiocese of the Syrian Orthodox Church of N. America. His 2012 memorial recalls that “Peter Gillquist…infused evangelical fervor into the Antiochian Orthodox Church beginning in 1987, when he led some 2,000 of his Protestant followers into Eastern Orthodoxy.” “If he had not come into the church and brought those people in, our church would have atrophied to the point of near extinction,” recollects [North Park University professor Brad] Nassif. “Gillquist came along at the right moment in American Orthodox history,’” Dr. Nassif said. Weston Gentry observed that “Gillquist…served as a critical bridge for relations between evangelicals and Orthodox, having spent the majority of his career on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ before his conversion [‘conversion’ to the Orthodox Church].” [Weston Gentry, “Eastern Orthodox Lose Two Evangelical Bridges – Resignation of Metropolitan Jonah Follows Death of Peter Gillquist,” Christianity Today, (originally posted 8/27/2012)]

Witness Lee lambastes the “return to the historic church.”

It is against this background of a rival restoration movement trending towards Eastern Orthodoxy, plus a history of altercations with the Local Church, that we ought to read Witness Lee’s denunciation of those who “return to the so-called historic church.” These statements were not made in a vacuum; they were made against the backdrop of a “rival stream” or “competing movement,” based (like W. Lee’s ‘Local Church’) in the S. California region. Addressing the perceived threat posed by these “opposers,” Witness Lee declared:

“Some of the opposers have said that we should return to the so-called historic church and follow the traditional practices. Recently, a group of so-called fundamental Christians even published an article appealing to Christians to return to the historic church. But the historic church has adopted many regulations that are absolutely unscriptural, and it has made many decisions regarding things not found in the Bible.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Matt., Ch. 45, Sect. 1]

Given the time frame of the Life-Study of Matthew (late 1970s) we are almost certain that these “opposers” calling for a “return to the historic church” were the “New Covenant Apostolic Order” [NCAO] which would morph into “Evangelical Orthodox Church” [EOC] and then the Antiochian Orthodox Church [AOC]. The “group of so-called fundamental Christians” included Peter Gillquist, Jon Braun, Jack Sparks, Gordon Walker, Ken Berven & Ray Nethery, among others. Surely, as genuine believers, they ought not to be denigrated as “so-called fundamental Christians.”

Witness Lee continued by contending:

“We are accused of not following the historic church, that is, of not following the traditions. We answer that we must come back to the pure Word and not care for the traditions of the historic church. In the various councils and creeds of the historic church, there is no mention of the 7 Spirits. This means that if we follow the traditional concept of the Trinity, we shall neglect the 7 Spirits. Our critics say, ‘You don't honor the ancient councils which formulated the creeds regarding the Trinity. ‘We respond, ‘We don't follow the creeds. They are man's teaching and tradition. Instead, we come back to the pure Word. In the Bible we find something more than what is included in the creeds...’ [There is a] gap between the Lord's recovery and traditional Christianity. This gap exists because the recovery is based wholly upon the pure Word, whereas Christianity is filled with traditions.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Matt., Ch. 45, Sect. 1]

That was Then, This is Now

At that time, Witness Lee asserted that “we must come back to the pure Word and not care for the traditions of the historic church.” Plus he stated ‘We don't follow the creeds. They are man's teaching and tradition. Instead, we come back to the pure Word.” In contrast to Peter Gillquist, Jon Braun & Jack Sparks’ “Apostolic Order”/”Evangelical/Antiochian Orthodox Church,” Witness Lee asserted there is a “gap between the Lord's recovery and traditional Christianity.” Similar statements can be found; for example: “We in the Lord’s recovery do not treasure theology, tradition, or the councils. We honor, respect, and treasure the holy Word.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Tim..., Ch. 18, Sect. 2]

Witness Lee Appeals to the Creeds & Church Fathers

Fast forward a decade or so and we find Witness Lee appealing to the creeds and Church Fathers to support his deification dogma. In promoting deification and responding to critiques of this dogma, W. Lee and LSM do not mainly appeal to Scripture, but rather to later, post-apostolic writings of the church fathers. As W. Lee writes, “The high truth...that man might become God...was discovered by the church fathers in the second century.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Chron..., Ch. 26, Sect. 1, (emphasis added)] Who are these “church fathers”? LSM refers to Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) as “one of the earliest witnesses,” supporting deification. He is followed by Irenaeus (early 2nd century to 202 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150--215), Athanasius (296--373), Origen (184/185–253/254), Hippolytus (170–235) and the Cappadocians—Basil the Great (329/330–379), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 395), & Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–389/390). These are notable “church fathers” from the 2nd to 4th centuries; however, they are not first-century apostles. Moreover their writings do not constitute Scripture, neither are they on par with the Bible. It is hypocritical of Witness Lee, having lambasted the church Fathers’ creeds & traditions, to then cite them as vindication of his deification dogma. Earlier he denounced “opposers” who called for a “return to the historic church.” Yet, on this point—deification—W. Lee himself has “returned to the historic church”! Moreover, by adopting Orthodoxy’s deification dogma, Witness Lee has “followed the footsteps” of his “opposers” who initiated the “Apostolic Order”/”Evangelical/Antiochian Orthodox Church”--Peter Gillquist, Jon Braun & Jack Sparks.

In view of the above, we ask:

· How much of Witness Lee’s denunciation of Gillquist, Braun & Sparks’ “return to the traditional church” was merely rhetorical posturing, which served its particular purpose at the time?
· In propounding his deification doctrine has not Witness Lee “returned to the historic church”?
· When LSM’s Kerry Robichaux declares deification ‘an essential,’ “We in the local churches hold that man may become God in God's salvation,” [Truth Concerning the Ultimate Goal of God's Economy, Ch. 1, St. 10] isn’t he taking the same stand as the “Antiochian Orthodox Church”?
· When LSM’s K. Robichaux says “We are also confirmed by the ancient testimony of the church,” isn’t he appealing to the “historic church,” just like Peter Gillquist, Jon Braun & Jack Sparks?

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA
April, 2016

Sources:
https://www.stathanasius.org/about/our-history/
http://www.antiochian.org/node/22274
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts...memory_eternal
http://www.virtual-memorials.com/mai...w&mem_id=18884
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...l-bridges.html

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ohio]

UntoHim,

Is this part of the original paper or an addendum?

[UntoHim]

Yes, this is essentially an addendum. Nigel submitted this piece separately, however I wanted to keep it closely related the original piece for the sake of our discussions. Actually, he submitted this piece last week, but I've been quite busy and had a heck of a time formatting it. I'm trying to figure out a way for people to submit things in HTML so that it won't be such a time consuming thing for me. In any event, I finally got it up on the forum. If Nigel strongly objects to it being placed as an addendum to his original piece, I'm sure he'll let me know.

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yes, this is essentially an addendum. Nigel submitted this piece separately, however I wanted to keep it closely related the original piece for the sake of our discussions. Actually, he submitted this piece last week, but I've been quite busy and had a heck of a time formatting it. I'm trying to figure out a way for people to submit things in HTML so that it won't be such a time consuming thing for me. In any event, I finally got it up on the forum. If Nigel strongly objects to it being placed as an addendum to his original piece, I'm sure he'll let me know.

-

Thanks.

What hypocrisy!

As one who lived through the Mindbenders and GodMen lawsuits and depositions, (if you remember, Phil Comfort in Columbus was saddled with numerous legal duties back in the late-70's since DCP was not yet formed) we in Columbus heard many things about Gillquist, Sparks, Braun, and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project.

One funny story from the lawsuit days was the so-called "Elephant Coronations." It went something like this. None of these "kids" from the Jesus People Movement had any sort of Christian training, so they needed some credentials to add respectability to their writings. None of them was really qualified to appoint any one else, so they devised an idea to "anoint" one another. Hence they knelt in a circle like a bunch of circus elephants, raised their arms, and "laid hands" on the one next to them. Now, they were all official. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz passing out diplomas for courage.

Witness Lee and Company had a heyday with this in their GodMen lawsuit before Judge Seyranian, who awarded them $11.9Million. It raises the level of hypocrisy to new heights, just thinking about their Eastern Orthodox connections.

[TLFisher]

I just skimmed through the addendum. The phrase that caught my attention however was Witness Lee saying we should come back to the pure word. Prophesy that today with the intent to drop the ministry publications and just take the Bible. How far will that get you in a local church meeting today? Escorted out of the meeting hall perhaps. What hypocrisy indeed!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I just skimmed through the addendum. The phrase that caught my attention however was Witness Lee saying we should come back to the pure word. Prophesy that today with the intent to drop the ministry publications and just take the Bible. How far will that get you in a local church meeting today? Escorted out of the meeting hall perhaps. What hypocrisy indeed!

I was specifically told that returning to the pure word of God was a "tactic of the enemy."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

they knelt in a circle like a bunch of circus elephants, raised their arms, and "laid hands" on the one next to them. Now, they were all official. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz passing out diplomas for courage...

Who anointed Witness Lee as the apostle of the age, anyway? Or was it simply when he got his 115th book self-published; everyone looked at each other in astonishment and said, "Surely this is the apostle sent into the world in these last times."

If I could muster ambition, I'd write a play. It would definitely be a comedy - of that I'm sure.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

by adopting Orthodoxy’s deification dogma, Witness Lee has “followed the footsteps” of his “opposers” who initiated the “Apostolic Order”/”Evangelical/Antiochian Orthodox Church”--Peter Gillquist, Jon Braun & Jack Sparks.

In view of the above, we ask:

· When LSM’s Kerry Robichaux declares deification ‘an essential,’ “We in the local churches hold that man may become God in God's salvation,” isn’t he taking the same stand as the “Antiochian Orthodox Church”?

Not sure why appealing to ancient sources is wrong, except that the LC decries it as "traditions of men" if anyone else does it.

I don't think theosis is wrong as an idea, per se. But it isn't profitable for public discourse, save to drive a wedge between oneself and others. Origen taught on theosis, but only privately, to those who were able to handle solid food. Publicly he taught repentance from sins, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and good works consistent with that confession. Origen knew that raising controversial issues of which there was no clear answer would only confuse the assembly and weaken its testimony before the unbelievers. If WL only had such reticence and circumspection!! But no, WL was convinced he could go where no man had gone before, and still return alive and whole. In this he was yet another "dime store prophet", one among dozens or even hundreds of misled souls, presuming for themselves places which the Lord had not appointed.

Originally Posted by Romans 12:3

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. (NIV)

Where was the 'sober judgment' when WL unveiled his version of theosis for the LC masses? People were running up and down the aisles, screaming, "I'm a God-man!!" The teaching was designed to stir up the crowds, keep them in a state of excitement, confusion, and imbalance. "Winds of teaching", indeed: there was no critical reflection, that I saw; no public discourse (not that there ever was any, in the LC).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think theosis is wrong as an idea, per se. But it isn't profitable for public discourse, save to drive a wedge between oneself and others. Origen taught on theosis, but only privately, to those who were able to handle solid food. Publicly he taught repentance from sins, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and good works consistent with that confession. Origen knew that raising controversial issues of which there was no clear answer would only confuse the assembly and weaken its testimony before the unbelievers.

Great research on Origen. I completely agree.

I have mentioned before my objections to this teaching, and that is one of them.

Witness Lee introduced this so-called "high peak" teaching, basically rehashing a statement by Athanasius, in the immediate aftermath of that nasty "storm" of the late 80's. He sold it to us as revelation from the throne of God following an intense period of persecution by evil and ambitious men (does that really sound like John Ingalls to you?) seeking to destroy him and his ministry to the LC's. Then he further told us that his terminal cancer was the result of a Satanic attack on him for releasing this same teaching to the LC's.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just read both sides of history for yourself if you desire to know the truth.

When I learned that the famed "storm" was just a smear job so that Lee could cover up corruption at LSM by his son Phillip, I wondered how the righteous Lord of glory could grant such extra-Biblical "revelations" to Witness Lee at this time? If His throne was truly founded on righteousness, then some serious repentance was needed at LSM long before God would even grant His grace, let alone "high peak" teachings heretofore not even given to the apostles.

[UntoHim]

"by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature"
2 Peter 1:4

and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him
1 John 3:2

When it comes to any major teaching/doctrine, I think it is always best to keep as close to the Word of God as possible, especially one as important as this matter of deification or theosis. Any church father or any early creed should only be allowed to take us as far as the Word of God takes us. In this case, I think it best to stay as close to the scripture writing apostles as possible.

We are all probably very familiar with the two verses I have provided above. One is from the apostle Peter and the other from the apostle John. These were the two closest apostles to the Lord Jesus. I think we would be well-advised to not go too much farther then from these two apostles.

Without boring ya'll with the getting into any of the intricacies of the Greek, I think it might be worth pointing out the most of the major translations use the word "Partaker" in 2 Peter 1:4 (a few using the alternative renderings of "Share" and "Participate".) I am unaware of any English translation of 1 John 3:2 that translates the term "like him" with any other term or phrase.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature"
2 Peter 1:4

and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him
1 John 3:2

Dear brother,

So when the apostle John states that "what we will be has not yet appeared" (other translations have it rendered as "what we will be has not yet been manifested"..), do you, in your mind, believe that what he is actually saying is "what we will be is still heavily shrouded in mystery" or "what we will be is impossible to know and cannot be known"? Is this an accurate transliteration? Well, it is not accurate. And I'm sorry I could be mistaken, but I get the impression that this is how you literally understand that verse in your mind when I see you resorting to it as proof that what Li Changshou taught was wide of the mark.

As for myself, when I read that verse in ordinary English, what it says to me (and indulge me for a moment here), is that IF Man is becoming God in Life and Nature, then the reality of that fact has not 'shown itself' yet; or it has not 'become visible in the physical realm of the five senses' at the present time, but will certainly do so. And even more certainly, the verse does not in any way negate the 'truth' (if truth it is) of Man becoming God in Life and Nature, though not in the Godhead. I daresay that you will have to search the Scriptures more diligently to convincingly achieve this purpose i.e. "to see if these things are 'not so'.."

Furthermore, as concerning the last part of that verse, it is almost as if you understand it to say "hey folks, we're just gonna be 'like' him" (but not really like him). It's almost as if you think we're only going to be 'like' Him in as far "facsimile or xerox copies" represent the original, or 'like' some other cheap imitations of Him. I really don't know what it is you really think, but it certainly looks like you've never really considered (or maybe you choose not to mull very deeply over these things, I don't know) that when a grain of wheat falls into the ground (and dies), and then sprouts and shoots back up again to become the full-bodied cereal, the grains that it produces are EXACTLY the same as the original. They are not just 'like' the original grain, they are LIKE the original grain! Nothing more, nothing less! In Life. In Nature. Period.

And Jesus IS from our species. He IS of the human race. He IS a genuine human being. He IS a man in every way conceivable! And He IS also absolutely God! He IS our great God and savior! (Titus 2:13).

He died. He fell into the ground.

Do the math.

____________________________________________
"For in Christ all the FULNESS of the Godhead lives in bodily form, and you have been given (this) FULNESS in Christ". (Colossians 2: 9-10)

[UntoHim]

2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:2
Proof Texts for LSM’s Deification Dogma?
Nigel Tomes

What is the biblical basis for LSM’s deification dogma—that “man may become God”--if indeed any such basis exists? Witness Lee and his LSM adherents appeal to a number of Scriptures, chief among them are 2 Peter 1:4 and 1 John 3:2. Let’s examine them in the light of evangelical biblical scholarship.

“Partakers of the Divine Nature”—2 Peter 1:4

Witness Lee appeals to 2 Peter 1:4 as a proof text justifying his deification dogma. This Scripture says believers are “partakers of the divine nature.” This is the closest Scripture comes to legitimizing the doctrine of deification (theosis). So Dr. Michael F. Bird of Ridley College, Brisbane, Australia, writes, “Theosis is based almost exclusively on 2 Peter 1:4, and though prominent in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it has never really been a serious contender for the organizing theme of soteriology.”0

Moreover, evangelical scholars reject the notion that deification is implied here. Professor James Starr of Johannelund Theological Seminary (Uppsala, Sweden) writes “2 Peter is not speaking in 1:4 of apotheosis [deification] in the sense of becoming a part of God’s essence or ceasing to be human, but of partaking of specific divine attributes seen perfectly in Christ.”1 The respected commentator, Professor Richard J. Bauckham, says (with characteristic reserve) “It is not very likely that participation in God’s own essence is intended.”2 Yet “participating in God’s own essence” is exactly how Witness Lee defines deification; these scholars deduce that Peter is not talking about that! In his exposition of 2 Peter 1:4, Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) writes “Peter is not saying that human beings will actually become divine or that they will share in the divine nature in every respect. Believers will share in the divine nature in that they will be morally perfected; they will share in the moral excellence that belongs to God. Believers will ‘participate’ in the divine nature, but they will not become gods…[Thus] James Starr concludes …that sharing in the divine nature does not mean ‘deified’. Instead Peter maintained that believers will share in the moral qualities of Christ.”3 Dr. James Starr directly addresses the question--Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification? He answers negatively—it “does not mean ‘deified’.” When considered in its context, “’Sharers in divine nature’ should be read as a theological shorthand for a constellation of ideas: knowledge of Christ producing escape from passion [lust] and decay [corruption] to divine moral excellence & divine immortality, both of which are in the process of being realized already now,” Dr. Starr says.4 “Partakers of the divine nature,” interpreted within its context means believers participate in certain divine attributes (e.g. eternal life, incorruptibility & immortality); they do not become capital ‘G’ God, nor do they become God essentially.

“We will be like Him”--1 John 3:2

Witness Lee also cites to the Apostle John’s writing to justify his doctrine of deification. He says, “1 John 3:2 says, ‘Beloved, now we are children of God...We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him.’ This verse clearly reveals that we will be like God....John 1:12-13 says that we were born, regenerated, by God with His life. As God's children we are ‘baby gods,’ having God's life and nature but not His Godhead. ...God wants those who can say, ‘...I am God in life and in nature but not in His Godhead.’...The New Testament reveals that we, the believers in Christ, have God’s life and nature and that we are becoming God in life and in nature but will never have His Godhead.”5We note that W. Lee extrapolates from what Scripture says—that we are children of God, born of God—to what the Bible does not say—that we are “baby gods,” who declare ‘I am God…”

It is ironic that W. Lee uses John’s writings to argue that believers become God, since John makes a clear distinction between the two—between the believers who are God’s “children” and Jesus, who is both God and the “Son of God.” As Professor Colin G. Kruse of Melbourne School of Theology, Australia, points out “When the evangelist [John] describes those who believe as ‘children’ of God, he uses the word ‘child’ (teknon). He reserves the word ‘Son’ (huios) for Jesus himself. In this way he [John] maintains a distinction between Jesus as the ‘Son’ of God and the believers as ‘children’ of God.”6 Dr. Kruse and other expositors maintain that the Apostle John makes a conscious distinction between God and man, between Jesus the Son of God, and the believers as children of God. W. Lee ignores and even blurs this distinction.

Note also that John says “we will be like Him;” he does not say “we will be Him,” or anything like that. Oxford University Professor, Alister E. McGrath, states that “a distinction must be drawn between the idea of deification as ‘becoming God’ (theosis) and ‘becoming like God’ (homoiosis theoi).”7 Most evangelicals don’t have a problem with ‘becoming like God’ (homoiosis theoi) or ‘becoming like Christ,” which 1 John 3:2 talks about. But they do have problem with ‘man becoming God’ (theosis).

Conclusion

It seems to me that there are two options regarding the dogma of deification (theosis). Either
[1] it means what it appears to mean—‘man becomes capital ‘G’ God;’ in this case it is heterodox. Or
[2] it does not mean what it appears to mean—i.e. it does not mean that —‘man becomes capital ‘G’ God;’ in this case the label is misleading, it is a misrepresentation.
To me both options are unappealing.

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA
April, 2016

Notes:
0. Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical & Systematic Introduction, p.]
1. James Starr, Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification? p. 85, emphasis added
2. Richard J. Bauckham, Commentary on 1-2 Peter, Jude Prof Richard Bauckham was, until 2007, Professor of NT Studies in the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK. He has since retired and is senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, UK
3. Thomas R. Schreiner, First, Second Peter, Jude pp. 294-5, emphasis added. Dr. Schreiner is professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.
4. James Starr, Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification? p. 84, emphasis original. He also says, “A constellation of ideas is identified in 2 Peter 1:1—11 that informs the meaning of ‘sharers in divine nature.’ By faith a person gains knowledge of Christ, which grants to the Christ-believer two distinct but inseparable divine attributes: the moral excellence of Christ, exhibited with progressive clarity by the Christian, and...the immortality of Christ, with an escape from the decay caused by desire. The parousia [Christ’s return] consummates the Christ-believer’s share in both aspects of divine nature.” (James M. Starr, Sharers in Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4 in Its Hellenistic Context. Abstract)
5. W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Samuel, Ch. 25, Sect. 2, pp. 166-167
6. Colin G. Kruse, Gospel according to John: An Introduction & Commentary, p. 67, Marianne M. Thompson makes the same point, see Marianne Meye Thompson, God of the Gospel of John, p. 70
7. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, p. 339

--

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Furthermore, as concerning the last part of that verse, it is almost as if you understand it to say "hey folks, we're just gonna be 'like' him" (but not really like him). It's almost as if you think we're only going to be 'like' Him in as far "facsimile or xerox copies" represent the original, or 'like' some other cheap imitations of Him. I really don't know what it is you really think, but it certainly looks like you've never really considered (or maybe you choose not to mull very deeply over these things, I don't know) that when a grain of wheat falls into the ground (and dies), and then sprouts and shoots back up again to become the full-bodied cereal, the grains that it produces are EXACTLY the same as the original. They are not just 'like' the original grain, they are LIKE the original grain! Nothing more, nothing less! In Life. In Nature. Period.

And Jesus IS from our species. He IS of the human race. He IS a genuine human being. He IS a man in every way conceivable! And He IS also absolutely God! He IS our great God and savior! (Titus 2:13).

He died. He fell into the ground. Do the math.

Why would you link yourself to heretical cults, claiming that we all become Gods or gods, and then use the church fathers and human logic to explain your way out of it? Don't you think Peter, Paul, and John had ample opportunity to explicitly say this had they been so inspired by the Spirit?

But alas the Bible never says it, so we don't believe it. I did the math, searched the Book, and have settled on the words of scripture. They are enough for me, why are they not sufficient for you? Have you not read Lee's teachings in the early days rejecting this errant teaching? Then Lee flip-flopped on this teaching, and you bought the whole package. Think about what you have done.

But in true Lee form, you would rather side with the likes of new-agers who claim to be god, and at the same time stand against the greater orthodox body of Christ, who are content to be "like Him.". For some reason Lee never knew who his enemies were. He made enemies of genuine brothers, and with this teaching, he sided with those who reject the truth.

Can you also explain why the Lord of glory would give Lee such a "revelation" following a coverup and smear campaign orchestrated by LSM to coverup unrighteous in their offices by Lee's son? Why would He withhold this "truth" from the original apostles who were faithful unto death, and give it to Lee, who did so much damage to the body of Christ with his money-making schemes?

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Furthermore, as concerning the last part of that verse, it is almost as if you understand it to say "hey folks, we're just gonna be 'like' him" (but not really like him). It's almost as if you think we're only going to be 'like' Him in as far "facsimile or xerox copies" represent the original, or 'like' some other cheap imitations of Him. I really don't know what it is you really think, but it certainly looks like you've never really considered (or maybe you choose not to mull very deeply over these things, I don't know) that when a grain of wheat falls into the ground (and dies), and then sprouts and shoots back up again to become the full-bodied cereal, the grains that it produces are EXACTLY the same as the original. They are not just 'like' the original grain, they are LIKE the original grain! Nothing more, nothing less! In Life. In Nature. Period.

And Jesus IS from our species. He IS of the human race. He IS a genuine human being. He IS a man in every way conceivable! And He IS also absolutely God! He IS our great God and savior! (Titus 2:13).

He died. He fell into the ground.

Do the math.

____________________________________________
"For in Christ all the FULNESS of the Godhead lives in bodily form, and you have been given (this) FULNESS in Christ". (Colossians 2: 9-10)

Ohio,

The above is what you quoted from me in a previous post. You addressed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, not a single concern, that was raised in the portion you quoted from my post. Are you only interested in arguing and quarreling?

Here is your near-mindless HARANGUE below...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why would you link yourself to heretical cults, claiming that we all become Gods or gods, and then use the church fathers and human logic to explain your way out of it? Don't you think Peter, Paul, and John had ample opportunity to explicitly say this had they been so inspired by the Spirit?

But alas the Bible never says it, so we don't believe it. I did the math, searched the Book, and have settled on the words of scripture. They are enough for me, why are they not sufficient for you? Have you not read Lee's teachings in the early days rejecting this errant teaching? Then Lee flip-flopped on this teaching, and you bought the whole package. Think about what you have done.

But in true Lee form, you would rather side with the likes of new-agers who claim to be god, and at the same time stand against the greater orthodox body of Christ, who are content to be "like Him.". For some reason Lee never knew who his enemies were. He made enemies of genuine brothers, and with this teaching, he sided with those who reject the truth.

Can you also explain why the Lord of glory would give Lee such a "revelation" following a coverup and smear campaign orchestrated by LSM to coverup unrighteous in their offices by Lee's son? Why would He withhold this "truth" from the original apostles who were faithful unto death, and give it to Lee, who did so much damage to the body of Christ with his money-making schemes?

Really, brother?

If you must vent in this way, please see someone who is professionally qualified to handle your issues. Do not use me as some kind of therapy; instead of engaging me in a reasoned and logical discussion.

Grace and peace.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

Do the math.

Yes, do the math. And the math says, don't teach as dogma that which goes "beyond what is written."

I can "do the math" on a lot of things and come up with all kinds of interesting conclusions that are not clearly taught in the Bible.

We all have our pet theories about things which the Bible doesn't make exactly clear. But it's one thing to speculate about them and another to teach and insist on them as fundamental doctrines. I shouldn't even have to mention that it is inexcusable to take them so far that they divide the Body. But I guess I do have to mention it.

Witness Lee didn't know the difference. Hopefully we won't repeat his mistake.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Witness Lee didn't know the difference. Hopefully we won't repeat his mistake.

Oh, he knew the difference. Avarice and pride was in the way.

[Cal]

Here is what I think is an intelligent question.

How does one become God in life and nature but not the Godhead? What part of God is not Godhead? How can anything truly be God but not be the Godhead? Is there some small corner of God that is not the Godhead?

Bottom line: If it's God, then it's the Godhead. And if it's not the Godhead, then it's not God.

There is no way to "be God" and not be the Godhead.

Isn't that "doing the math?"

Also, claiming one can be God but not the Godhead opens the door wide to claims that Jesus was God but not Godhead.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

I really don't know what it is you really think, but it certainly looks like you've never really considered (or maybe you choose not to mull very deeply over these things, I don't know) that when a grain of wheat falls into the ground (and dies), and then sprouts and shoots back up again to become the full-bodied cereal, the grains that it produces are EXACTLY the same as the original. They are not just 'like' the original grain, they are LIKE the original grain! Nothing more, nothing less! In Life. In Nature. Period.

There are many analogies and comparisons which the Lord uses to illustrate our relationship with him. However, to extrapolate from the illustration of a grain producing many grains the conclusion that we "become God" in life and nature is like saying we will grow wool and go bah-bah because Jesus called us sheep. There are some things that you can gather from illustrations and some you should not. Jesus' illustration was to show that by dying and resurrecting he would produce many others who were like him. Much beyond that is just speculation.

You've already pointed out that John made clear that "it is not clear what we shall be." The problem is you are trying to clearly define what we shall be when the Bible already said it isn't clear. Why are you doing that? If John (or Paul or Peter) was clear we were becoming God or felt we should be clear about it, don't you think he would have made that clear to us rather than saying it wasn't clear? Is this clear enough?

Paul obviously knew some things he didn't share, because he said he heard things "unlawful for men to speak." Why would some divine things be unlawful for us to speak? I don't know, but the Bible says some are. Man's first sin was to seek knowledge God didn't want him to have. I believe in seeking knowledge. But we need to stop short of declaring theories as facts; we need to beware of going "beyond what is written."

As I said, we all have theories. Nothing wrong with considering things. I do it. What I try to avoid is insisting on things which are just my theories. And thinking we will become God is just that, a theory. Believe it if you want to. But I think it's a mistake to major on it.

Again, however, it's one of those things LCers feel like they have to believe (and defend) because Lee taught it, no matter how they actually feel about it. I don't see how you can come to truly sober conclusions being subject that kind of pressure and mindset.

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are many analogies and comparisons which the Lord uses to illustrate our relationship with him. However, to extrapolate from the illustration of a grain producing many grains the conclusion that we "become God" in life and nature is like saying we will grow wool and go bah-bah because Jesus called us sheep. There are some things that you can gather from illustrations and some you should not. Jesus' illustration was to show that by dying and resurrecting he would produce MANY OTHERS WHO WERE LIKE HIM. Much beyond that is just speculation.

I wonder what you suppose 'like Him' means? Will we be photocopies of Him? Will we be some cheap knock-offs of Him? Have you ever considered what we will be made of -or 'constituted' with- that it should be said of us that we are ACTUALLY 'like Him'?

Do you think that this phrase is meant only in the 'moral' sense, as some have maintained on this forum? If that is so, then, are not the holy angels of God 'moral', too? Aren't they? Well, of course they are! And have you ever heard it said of any of them that they are 'like Him'? Balderdash!

Could you order to have made a row of plastic dummies made to look like your own son (even down to the minutest detail) and then tell him, "here are your brothers, son"? Would you? Think about that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You've already pointed out that John made clear that "it is not clear what we shall be." The problem is you are trying to clearly define what we shall be when the Bible already said it isn't clear. Why are you doing that?

Please do not misquote me. That is NOT what I said (did you remember to clean your reading glasses, brother?) And also, that is CERTAINLY NOT what the Bible says!

There's a big difference between saying 'that something is not clear' and 'that something has not yet appeared'. The Bible makes it very clear that we shall be 'like Him'. It also makes it clear that this event 'has not yet appeared' (or 'been manifested' according to KJV). It did not say that this -which has not yet appeared- is not clear! Have your cobwebs cleared now? [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But we need to stop short of declaring theories as facts; we need to beware of going "beyond what is written."

As I said, we all have theories. Nothing wrong with considering things. I do it. What I try to avoid is insisting on things which are just my theories. And thinking we will become God is just that, a theory.

It is not just a theory. Before you go about warning people to 'not go beyond what is written' have you, yourself, considered ALL that is written? You act as if the only evidence given out of the Bible by Li Changshou for this so-called "theory" is a simple verse or two. Well, there's plenty written. Search the Scriptures.

And yes, 'do the math' and see if these things are 'not so'.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

?...proof that what Li Changshou taught was wide of the mark.

Yes, the man you honor was so wide of the mark that he swindled money from the saints, called all who don't receive his teaching as whores or daughters of the whore, and allowed others to exalt him above all other men. Honor WL if you must, but I will honor the Lord and consider all men as Paul considered himself. I submit that the man-honoring blendeds are so wide of the mark that they will be lucky to be "last" in the kingdom.