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

[UntoHim]

Where is LSM’s Great ‘High Peak Revival’?
Lessons from Orthodoxy
Nigel Tomes

In his final years Witness Lee [Li Changshou 李常受 1905-97] adopted Orthodoxy’s deification dogma --‘God became man to make man God’ (theosis). He called it “the highest peak of the divine revelation in the entire Bible.”0 Deification, he proclaimed, is “the ‘diamond’ in the ‘box’ of the Bible,”1 and he roundly condemned Christians who “care for...the ‘box,’ but...have not seen and do not appreciate the ‘diamond’ [i.e., deification].” W. Lee also asserted that this doctrine would produce a “new revival, a revival which has never been seen in man's history,”2 “the greatest revival in the history of the church,”3 “the highest revival, and probably the last revival before the Lord’s coming back.”3 LSM’s deification dogma was supposed to issue in a great ‘high peak’ revival. Witness Lee proclaimed: “This truth...may be the last item that the Lord needs to recover...This will bring in a new revival which has never been seen in history, and this will end this age.”4 He also declared:5

“Since we have seen such a high peak of the divine revelation [i.e., deification], we need to put into practice what we have seen. Our practice will have a success, and that success will be a new revival—the highest revival, and probably the last revival before the Lord’s coming back...If we practice what we have heard, spontaneously a model will be built up. This model will be the greatest revival in the history of the church. I believe that this revival will bring the Lord back.”

Where’s the Revival?

Over two decades have elapsed since these words were spoken. In the interim Witness Lee’s ‘high peak’ teaching have been sliced & diced, regularly reiterated at LSM’s “Seven annual Feasts,” and republished as Holy Word for Morning Revival [HWMR], diligently memorized and loyally recited (“prophesied”) by the LSM faithful. We ask: where is LSM’s promised ‘great high peak revival’?

I am not well informed about the Local Church’s situation in the Orient—‘the Shouters’ [呼喊派* hūhǎn pài] in mainland China & the “Assembly Hall Churches” elsewhere in Asia. In the Occident, however, there are no observable signs of revival in the “Lord’s Recovery.” Of course LSM’s “blended brothers” could always blame “the saints,” charging “you have not practiced it;” but, that is unfair.

Orthodox Christianity--the Historical Data

I maintain that abundant data6 already exists supporting the null hypothesis that the deification dogma does not produce revival. These data are the 1,000-year historical record of the Orthodox Church. While deification was neglected by the Western Church (Catholic, Protestant, etc) it remained central to the Orthodox Church. Michael Horton says “Deification (theosis)...is a central theme of Eastern Orthodox soteriology.”7 If this doctrine is the “diamond in the box” (as W. Lee alleged) the Orthodox Church has focused on the deification “diamond,” while the rest of Christianity focused on the “box.” Therefore Orthodoxy ought to display some evidence of God’s blessing—vitality, revival, spread and/or increase—if these claims are correct. What does the historical record show?8

Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Western Christianity

The ‘Great Church’ split in two over a millennium ago. Patrick Johnston reports that “The ‘Great Schism’ of AD 1054 divided the Eastern & Western Church. Then [in AD 1054] 54% of all Christians were ‘Orthodox.’ But big losses to Islam and Catholicism followed and today [2000] only 10% of [global] Christians are Orthodox.”9 Scholars deduce that, at the time of the split, a majority (54%) of the global Christians belonged to the Eastern Church; at that juncture the Orthodox Church of the East out-numbered the Western Church. By 2000, however, the Orthodox Church represented only 10% of the world’s Christians. These trends are not indicative of vitality or revival in Orthodoxy. No doubt the Orthodox faced a greater challenge from Islam, but they also lost members to Catholicism.

Orthodoxy’s 20th-Century Decline

The overall downward trend of Orthodoxy continued in the 20th century. Researchers Todd Johnson, & Cindy Wu report that “Since 1900 Orthodox...[has] declined as percentages of the population, both within Christianity and globally. Orthodoxy, decimated by the rise of communism, dropped from over 7% of the global population [in 1900] to 4% today [2015]. At the same time the Orthodox fell from 21% (20.8%) [of all Christians in 1900] to less than 12% (11.7%) of all Christians [in 2015].”10 The precipitous decline of Orthodoxy’s representation—by nine percentage points--occurred against the backdrop of relative stability of Christianity’s share of the world’s population—“In 1900 it was 34.5% of the global population, and today (2015) it is 33.0%,”11 Johnson & Wu report.

By comparison, since 1900 Roman Catholics & mainline Protestants have been relatively stable both as a % of global population and as a % of Christianity. However, some ‘sectors’ of Christianity have grown dramatically. ‘Independent Christians’ (non-denominational ‘free groups’) “rose meteorically,” Johnson & Wu say.12 This group, ‘independents,’ “represented only 1.6% of Christians in 1900 but rose meteorically to over 17% in 2015. Their share of the global population also increased from 0.5% to 5.7%.” The data viewed from another angle show “Renewalists” (Pentecostals, Charismatics) grew from 0.2% to 26.6% of all Christians in the same period. They also grew as a % of global population.13

‘Old World’ Christianity—Europe

The figures above are global; they take into account the successful spread of the Christian faith from its historical centers in Europe and the Near East to Asia, Africa & the Americas. Over the ‘long haul’ Catholicism spread via the Portuguese, Spanish & French colonies; Protestants, evangelicals and Pentecostals spread via the ‘missionary movement’ of recent centuries. Notably absent is the global spread of the Orthodox Christian faith; mission is missing. “Orthodoxy has historically never been a missionary tradition,” observes John L. Allen.14 The 19th century was the “Great Century of Missions”15 for Protestant Christians; it had no equivalent among Orthodox Christianity in the East.

In the course of the 20th century the number of Christians in Europe grew at the low rate of 0.38%. Anglicans & mainline Protestants grew at below average rates. Orthodox rose only slightly above average (0.42%). Meanwhile, Roman Catholics grew at 1% (above average), while ‘independents’ (non-denominational) rose rapidly at 5.75%. Even on their European ‘home turf,’ Eastern Orthodoxy has not exhibited vibrant signs of growth, even accounting for communism’s collapse in E. Europe.16

‘Old World’ Christianity—Middle East

Orthodoxy’s share of the regional population in the Middle East fell from 11.8% in 1910 to 2.7% in 2010, due in part to emigration and also conversion to Protestant and Independent expressions of Christianity. Further Orthodox declines are anticipated. But not all forms of Christianity are in decline in the Middle East. Roman Catholic representation increased from 10% in 1910 to 30% in 2010, partly due to large numbers of Catholic guest workers (e.g. Filipinos in Saudi Arabia & Arab Emirates).17

‘New World’ Orthodoxy in the Americas

From the start America’s immigrants brought their faith and spread it. The US constitution’s Church-State separation produced a “level playing field” for all religions; none enjoyed a state-sponsored monopoly or ‘most-favored religion’ status. Some Christian groups prospered (e.g. evangelicals), others did not. Orthodoxy falls in the latter category. A 2007 Pew Research survey18 reported that only 0.6% of the US population [under 2M] adheres to the Orthodox Church, compared to 78.5% [236M] identifying as “Christian.” Catholics were 23.9% [72M] and Protestants 51.3% [154M]. In 2007 there were more Buddhists and Jehovah’s Witnesses than members of the US Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy has deification, but they don’t appear to have vitality or evangelism. Moreover, its moribund US condition can’t be attributed to Islam’s persecution or communism’s suppression. Dr. Antonois Kireopolos, observes, “The Orthodox [church] in the US...has often preoccupied itself more with ‘protecting’ a diaspora flock in a self-satisfied isolation than with intentional critical engagement.”19

Orthodoxy—No Signs of Revival

These figures indicate that, if we are looking for data suggestive of revival and vitality among Christian groups, the leading candidates are ‘independent” (e.g. African Independent churches, non-denominational congregations) & Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians. Orthodoxy, despite its deification dogma, is in (relative) decline; there are no (statistical) signs of revival or renewal here.

Looking to the future, Orthodoxy’s prospects are no brighter. For the 20-year period, 2005 to 2025, the world’s Christian population is projected to grow at 1.11%. Independents are projected to increase at 1.64%; Pentecostal/ Charismatics 1.54%; Protestants at 1.26%; evangelicals 1.08%; Roman Catholics at 1.01% and Orthodox (trailing the pack) at 0.6%.20

The Orthodox Church desperately needs revival. Professor Philip Jenkins, looking at population trends (e.g. low birth rates), observes that,21 “The Eastern Orthodox churches will suffer acutely from demographic changes given that the church’s numbers are so heavily concentrated in declining Europe...Without a substantial Orthodox revival, demographic trends mean that the long-term future of that church is in doubt.” Yet evidence suggests Orthodoxy’s deification dogma is an obstacle to renewal. The missionary influx into Russia after communism’s demise brought “wounded accusations from the Russian Orthodox Church—the new missionaries were forgetting Russia’s ancient Christian heritage...they proclaimed an inferior message of original sin and conversion in place of the historic Orthodox doctrine of theosis (divinization)...,”22 reports Professor Mark Noll. This also suggests that LSM’s ‘high gospel’ of deification will have very little purchase among Orthodox populations; it amounts to “shipping coal to Newcastle” (or “importing apples to Washington State.”) Plus Orthodoxy has proved resistant to Charismatic renewal. One observer notes “The Charismatic renewal movement in the Eastern Orthodox Church never exerted the influence that it did in other mainstream churches.”23

Conclusion: Deification — ‘Diamond,’ ‘Dud’ or ‘Distortion’?

Witness Lee portrayed his deification dogma as the “diamond in the box;” it was the last item of truth to be recovered, the capstone completing the Lord’s Recovery, initiating an unprecedented revival. But deification (theosis)—man becoming God—is not a new discovery. It has been at the center of Orthodoxy’s theology & teaching for centuries. If deification is the ‘diamond,’ as W. Lee claimed, there ought to be signs of revival and renewal in the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Syrian, Coptic, etc). The rest of Christianity (Witness Lee alleged) had only the ‘box.’

We have looked in vain for statistical evidence of vibrancy, revival & renewal in terms of gospel spread via missions & above-average growth for Orthodox variants of the church. We found none. Orthodoxy, despite deification, is in (relative) decline; we found no (statistical) signs of revival or renewal here. This suggests that LSM’s deification dogma is not a ‘diamond;’ rather it is a ‘dud’!

LSM’s Deification -- ‘Diamond’ or ‘Distortion’?

Yet a stronger conclusion seems justified. The Church Fathers’ era, which spawned deification, saw a subtle “shift in emphasis regarding the decisive saving event, from Jesus’ death as atonement for sin, to his birth & incarnation as the divine taking the human into itself. Despite the Pauline insistence that central to the gospel was the affirmation that ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Cor. 15:3), the creeds shift the focus from the atoning death to incarnation,”24 says Professor James Dunn. As a result justification was neglected; “In most patristic treatments of [deification] theosis justification plays next to no role at all,”25 Paul Gavrilyuk observes. As Orthodoxy evolved the gospel’s center was displaced due to the deification dogma from Christ’s death & resurrection (1 Cor. 2:2; 15:3-4) to his birth & incarnation. Thus scholars conclude “The incarnation…is the central redemptive event in Eastern Orthodoxy.”26 As a result Christ’s redemptive death is de-emphasized or (for some) dispensed with. Thus Orthodoxy’s Stephen Finlan advocates27 “highlighting...God’s near approach to humanity…through the incarnation of Jesus…but drop[ing] the idea of any magical transaction taking place at the cross [i.e., atonement].” Adam J. Johnson concludes that this shift makes “the incarnation the original and central doctrine of the Christian faith, relegating the atonement to the status of an impure accretion.”28

These observations warn us this is a serious matter; Witness Lee embraced deification, calling it “the diamond in the box,” making it “the thing.” The ‘diamond’ is deification; everything else is merely the ‘box.’ Athanasius’ maxim—“God became man to make man God,” obviously emphasizes incarnation (“God became man...”) and man’s deification (“to make man God”); it does not even mention Christ’s redemptive death on the cross or His resurrection. Hence it shifts the focus, the center of the gospel, away from Christ’s atoning death & resurrection to His birth & incarnation. This was not the Apostle Paul’s focus; compared to his gospel, this is a different gospel, a distorted gospel (Gal. 1:6-7). We maintain that an eviscerated gospel, drained of regenerative power, produces a moribund Church like Orthodoxy. By adopting Orthodoxy’s deification dogma, it appears LSM’s Local Church is following their footsteps. We found no evidence that deification is a catalyst for revival in Orthodoxy and (despite Witness Lee’s prophecies) we see no portents of a ‘high peak revival’ in LSM’s Local Church.

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA.
April, 2016


Notes: As always the views expressed here are those of the author alone. They should not be attributed to the believers, elders or churches with whom he is associated. Thanks are extended to those who commented on earlier drafts. This paper reports statistics, hopefully not too many so as to overwhelm readers. Obviously many more statistics could be presented. This writing presents a “macro view using a long time-series of data.” More detailed “micro” analysis of various branches of Orthodoxy in different time periods (centuries) would be useful in providing a fuller picture of the overall “macro trends.” Yet our conclusions are unlikely to be overturned.
0. In context: “Today we have come to this high peak of God’s divine revelation...we have probably reached the highest peak of the divine revelation in the entire Bible. This is the divine revelation discovered by the believers thro’ the past 20 centuries...[1] The 1st divine revelation discovered by the church fathers was...the Triune God...God is three-one, triune... [2] Centuries later Martin Luther ...saw the matter of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28). He discovered that salvation is not by works but by faith. [3] After this, many other students of the Bible made further discoveries. [4] However, before us, no one ever discovered God’s economy with Christ as its centrality & universality & all its reality. It was not until the last 10 years that we put all these things together to have a full picture of God’s economy. This is the highest peak of the divine revelation.” [W. Lee, Living a Life According to the High Peak of God's Revelation, Ch. 5, Sect. 2 (emph. add)]
1. Suppose, W. Lee said, “a certain box, which is quite attractive, contains a large diamond. A child may be interested in the box but not in the diamond. An adult, however, would focus...on the diamond... Today, many Christians care for the Bible as the ‘box,’ but they have not seen & do not appreciate the ‘diamond’ ...and they may even condemn those who... [appreciate] the ‘diamond’ in the ‘box.’ The ‘diamond’ in the ‘box’ of the Bible is the revelation that in Christ God has become man in order that man might become God... The vast majority of today's Christians neglect [this] crucial point in the Bible...” [W. Lee, Life-study of 1 & 2 Sam., pp. 203-204, also in LSM’s Truth Concerning the Ultimate Goal of God's Economy, Ch. 1, Sect. 7] After quoting this passage, LSM’s Ron Kangas berates “J. S.” [John So?] for objecting to W. Lee’s deification dogma, saying, “he [J. S.] not only has an empty ‘box’; he even tries to use the ‘box’ to deny the existence of the ‘diamond’ and to condemn as heretical those who appreciate the ‘diamond’...” [Ron Kangas, Truth Concerning the Ultimate Goal of God's Economy, Ch. 1, Sect. 7] Ron Kangas’ rhetoric only works for the LSM-faithful.
2. “Recently I released...the high peak of God's revelation—the revelation that God became a man so that man may become God in life & in nature (but not in the Godhead)...Now we need to pray that the Lord will give us a new revival, a revival which has never been seen in man's history.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Chron., Ch. 1, Sect. 2 (emph. add)]
3. “Since we have seen such a high peak of the divine revelation, we need to put into practice what we have seen. Our practice will have a success, and that success will be a new revival—the highest revival, and probably the last revival before the Lord’s coming back... If we practice what we have heard, spontaneously a model will be built up. This model will be the greatest revival in the history of the church. I believe that this revival will bring the Lord back.” [W. Lee, Living a Life according to the High Peak of God's Revelation, Ch. 5, Sect. 3 (emphasis added)]
4. The quote in context reads: “In the 2nd to the 5th centuries, the church fathers found 3 high mysteries in the Bible: (1) the Triune God, the Divine Trinity, the highest mystery; (2) the person of Christ; & (3) the deification of man—that man could become God in life & in nature but not in the Godhead. However, after the 5th century the truth concerning this last mystery was gradually lost. Using the Nicene Creed, today's Christianity affirms the first 2 mysteries—the mystery of the Divine Trinity & the mystery of Christ's person—but much of Christianity does not see anything about the 3rd mystery.... There is no teaching regarding this among most Christians today. But I feel strongly the Lord is going to recover this truth. As far as the truth is concerned, this may be the last item that the Lord needs to recover... Christians today...do not dare admit that the believers in Christ are God. At the end of this age, we are teaching and preaching the truth that God became a man in order to make man God, the same as He is in life & in nature but not in the Godhead. It is a great blessing to hear this truth....This will bring in a new revival which has never been seen in history, & this will end this age.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 1 & 2 Chron., Ezra, Neh., & Esther, Ch. 4, St. 3 (emph. added)]
5. W. Lee, Living a Life according to the High Peak of God's Revelation, Ch. 5, Sect. 3, July, 1994 (emphasis added)
6. We propose to examine data on the number of Christians to validate LSM’s claims. LSM themselves appeal to measurable data to quantify the legacies of Watchman Nee & Witness Lee. For e.g. a Congressional statement regarding the spread the Lord’s Recovery to Russia & Eastern Europe, says that as a result W. Lee/LSM & Local Church efforts there are “200 churches and several thousand believers in Russia and the Russian-speaking world.” [Statement by Joseph (Joe) R. Pitts of Pennsylvania in the US House of Representatives, Tuesday, April 29, 2014] An earlier statement regarding Watchman Nee’s impact in measurable terms notes “Today more than 3,000 churches outside of China, including several hundred in the United States, look to him as one of their religious and theological leaders.” [Hon. Christopher H. Smith, US Congressional Record—Extensions of Remarks, July 31, 2009, p. E2110]
7. Michael Horton says “Deification (theosis)...is the central theme of Eastern Orthodox soteriology.” [Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, p. ] Similarly Daniel L. Migliore, says “Deification Theosis is a central theme of Eastern Orthodox theology and spirituality, summed up in the familiar statement of Athanasius: ‘God became human that we might become divine’.” [Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd ed. p. ] Burgess & Gros write, For the Orthodox theosis is a central theological & religious idea.” [Joseph A. Burgess, Jeffrey Gros, Growing Consensus: Church Dialogues in the United States, 1962-1991, Vol. 1, p. 359]
8. World Christian Database data show the impact of the Great Awakenings in the US & Europe. The “First Great Awakening” 1725 in New England. The “Second Great Awakening” 1792- The “Third Great Awakening” or “Evangelical Awakening” 1857/59- etc. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends, AD 30-AD 2200:..., Vol. 1]
9. Patrick Johnston, Future of the Global Church: History, Trends & Possibilities, p. 115. Note that in these data the category, “Orthodox Churches” describes two distinct church families: the Eastern Orthodox Church [14 independent Orthodox Churches, e.g. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.] and Oriental Orthodox [e.g. Coptic Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc] which do not share communion with each other. See for e.g. Maria Hämmerli, & Jean-François Maye (eds.) Orthodox Identities in Western Europe: Migration, Settlement & Innovation, p. 2
10. Todd M. Johnson, Cindy M. Wu, Our Global Families: Christians.. in a Changing World, Table 1.2, p. 8
11. Todd M. Johnson, Cindy M. Wu, Our Global Families: Christians ...in a Changing World, Table 1.2, p. 7
12. Todd M. Johnson, Cindy M. Wu, Our Global Families: Christians ...in a Changing World, Table 1.2, pp. 8-9
13. “Renewalists” (Pentecostals & Charismatics) grew from 0.1% of global population in 1900 to 8.8% in 2015. Todd M. Johnson, Cindy M. Wu, Our Global Families: Christians ...in a Changing World, Table 1.2, p. 9. “Renewalists” (Pentecostals & Charismatics) represent another ‘cut’ of the data many Charismatics are also ‘independent.’
14. John L. Allen, Future Church: How Ten Trends Are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church, pp. 169-170. The quote in context reads: “Unlike Catholicism, Methodism, Anglicanism & other Christian tradition, Orthodoxy has historically never been a missionary tradition.” [John L. Allen, Future Church: How Ten Trends Are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church, pp. 169-170 (emphasis added)]
15. Andrew F. Walls, the historian of missions, notes that Yale University Professor “Latourette rightly calls the 19th century ‘The Great Century of Missions.’ But in no part of the world did that century see such a striking outcome as in North America. The main missionary achievement of the 19th century was the Christianizing of the US.” [Andrew F. Walls, Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, p. ]
16. In the period 1970 to 1990/95 the number of Orthodox Christians in Europe rose significantly from 107.126 M in 1970 to 155.120 M in 1990 & 156.451 M in 1995. This one-time ‘step upwards’ appears to account for most of the century’s increase. Going forward Orthodox growth is projected at 0.19% (slightly above the overall average Christian growth of 0.15%). [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends, AD 30-AD 2200..., Vol. 1, Table 10.1, p. 383]
17. Brian J, Grim, Todd M. Johnson, (eds.) Yearbook of International Religious Demography 2015, p. 159
18. Reported in United States Demographics - Part A, p. 87. The lack of growth in the Orthodox Church in the East (E. Europe & the Middle East) may be due to 20th century communism & the strength of Islam. But, neither of these factors comes into play in the US. The small size & lack of growth in the US Orthodox must be due to other factors.
19. Dr. Antonois Kireopolos, “Case Study” in Kirsteen Kim, Andrew Anderson (eds.) Edinburgh 2010: Mission Today and Tomorrow, p. 100 (emphasis added) The quote reads: “The Orthodox experience in the US...has often preoccupied itself more with ‘protecting’ a diaspora flock in a self-satisfied isolation than with intentional critical engagement.”
20. Todd M. Johnson, Peter F. Crossing, & Bobby Jangsun Ryu, Looking Forward: An Overview of World Evangelization, 2005-2025 (A special report for the Lausanne 2004 Forum on World Evangelization Center for the Study of Global Christianity) Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, pp. 8-9. In these data, “evangelicals” are “great commission Christians,” a broader category than “Evangelicals (theological definition)” who are projected to grow at 2.03%
21. Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, pp. 119-20
22. Mark A. Noll, The New Shape of World Christianity, p. 96
23. Author? , Church Schism & Corruption, p. 329
24. James D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity, p. 822. Elsewhere Professor James Dunn observes that the “Theosis, ‘deification,’ of humans is made much of in Orthodox Christianity...No doubt this can be attributed to the influence of Greek thought, particularly the Platonic idea that there is a spiritual part in humanity that really belongs to the heavenly world and that can recover its true, godlike nature.” [James D. G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence, p. 89] Dunn attributes theosis to pagan (Greek) thought.
25. Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “The Retrieval of Deification: How a Once-despised Archaism became an Ecumenical Disideratum,” Modern Theology, Vol. 25:4 (Oct. 2009) p. 653. “In most patristic treatments of theosis justification plays next to no role at all…” He also says “’deification by grace alone through faith alone’ has very little purchase in Eastern Orthodoxy.” Moreover, Gavrilyuk, questions Orthodoxy’s notion that deification applies to all God’s creatures/ creation, saying, “All things participate in God, but only rational beings can be justified…therefore the notion of justification cannot encompass deification.” [Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “The Retrieval of Deification: How a Once-despised Archaism became an Ecumenical Disideratum,” Modern Theology, Vol. 25:4 (Oct. 2009) p. 653]
26. Kelly M. Kapic, & Bruce L. McCormack, Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic & Historical Introduction, p. 285
27. Adam J. Johnson reports that Stephen Finlan asks: “‘What happens if we restate the divine Incarnation of Jesus, thereby highlighting the fact of God’s near approach to humanity…through the Incarnation of Jesus…but drop the idea of any magical transaction taking place at the cross [i.e., any traditional theory of atonement]?’ Finlan touts [Adam J. Johnson says]…making the incarnation the original and central doctrine of the Christian faith, relegating the atonement to the status of an impure accretion.” [Adam J. Johnson, Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 84-85 quoting (interior quote) Stephen Finlan, “Problems with the Atonement: The Origins of, & Controversy About, the Atonement Doctrine,” p. 119, & also citing pp. 117-120 (emphasis added—indicates the portion quoted in main text)]
28. Adam J. Johnson, Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 84-85. Adam J. Johnson says (via this proposal) Stephen “Finlan touts …making the incarnation the original and central doctrine of the Christian faith, relegating the atonement to the status of an impure accretion.” [Adam J. Johnson, Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 84-85]

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

Originally Posted by Tomes

Where is LSM’s Great ‘High Peak Revival’?
Lessons from Orthodoxy
Nigel Tomes

Looking to the future, Orthodoxy’s prospects are no brighter. For the 20-year period, 2005 to 2025, the world’s Christian population is projected to grow at 1.11%. Independents are projected to increase at 1.64%; Pentecostal/ Charismatics 1.54%; Protestants at 1.26%; evangelicals 1.08%; Roman Catholics at 1.01% and Orthodox (trailing the pack) at 0.6%.20

Hello everybody,

I'm more than a little confused. Can someone help me out a bit here. What is the difference between an Independent, an Evangelical, a Protestant, and a Pentecostal Christian? I've just realized that I've always taken them all to be the same group of people.

Fr. Scott.

[UntoHim]

The answer for you, my friend, lies within the quote you have cited: "the world’s Christian population" IS "the same group of people"! It is only people like Witness Lee that would say otherwise.

-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm more than a little confused. Can someone help me out a bit here. What is the difference between an Independent, an Evangelical, a Protestant, and a Pentecostal Christian? I've just realized that I've always taken them all to be the same group of people.

I can see the confusion. But I don't think the idea was to say that these are separate groups, but rather ways of dividing up the whole of Christianity.

At the highest level you have the EO, RCC and Protestants.

There are actually Catholics other than the RCC, though a very small part.

"Protestant" is a collection of many groups that can be singled out or even grouped within the larger protestant grouping. Independents is a vague collection of non-denominations, free groups, home churches, etc. It is likely that the Bible Church movement is in that since it is not a denomination and no assembly answers to anyone outside of itself (other than God). But it is also part of the Evangelicals. And another subset called Fundamentalist. Pentecostal/Charismatic groups are generally overlapping with evangelicals, but not always or not entirely in some cases.

The Anglicans are a funny bunch because to some degree they are simply separated Catholics, not really fitting in with Protestantism. But that is not a universal statement. There are very Evangelical Anglican churches.

So it is like drawing a variety of circles over a large population of Christians and finding that this circle is Evangelical. The next circle, which overlaps with the Evangelical circle at least somewhat are the Pentecostals/Charismatics. And so on.

Some groups are quite doctrinally different from others. Yet others are only marginally different, or mainly different in practice or in connection to "roots," etc.

[UntoHim]

The Triad Distinguished by Deification
Nigel Tomes

The Local Church movement began by emphasizing The Normal Christian Life and The Normal Christian Church Life (W. Nee). However, the ‘Lord’s Recovery,’ under the leadership of Witness Lee (Li Changshou) --the ‘Minister of the Age’ --was never content to be ‘normal;’ it was never satisfied simply to be one among many diverse expressions of Christ’s Church. The Local Church always claimed a privileged status—whether the sacramental ‘ground of locality’ or the highest revelation. In his final years Witness Lee appropriated Eastern Orthodoxy’s deification dogma, pronouncing it “the highest peak of the divine revelation in the entire Bible.”0 Thus deification—“man becoming God”—became the distinctive, defining characteristic of LSM’s Local Church. Deification is now a tenet of the faith in LSM’s Local Church; it has entered their creed. 1“We in the local churches hold that man may become God in God's salvation,” LSM’s Kerry Robichaux declared authoritatively.

In adopting this stance, LSM has aligned itself with a select group of ‘Christian Churches’ for whom the deification dogma is a key defining characteristic. To my knowledge there are three such groups forming a virtual triad distinguished by the deification doctrine – [1] the Eastern Orthodox Church, [2] the ‘Mormon’ Church of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) and [3] the ‘Local Church of the Recovery,’ linked to Witness Lee & his publishing arm—Living Stream Ministry (LSM). Here we briefly ‘set the stage’ for an examination of the similarities and differences between the members of this triad, ‘fellow travelers’ in the cause of deification.

[1] Eastern Orthodoxy
There is no doubt that theosis (deification) is the main tenet of the Orthodox Church. Consider the following:

· Michael Horton says “Deification (theosis)...is the central theme of Eastern Orthodox soteriology.”2
· Daniel L. Migliore, states “Deification Theosis is a central theme of Eastern Orthodox theology and spirituality, summed up ...[by] Athanasius: ‘God became human that we might become divine’.”3
· Joseph Burgess, Jeffrey Gros write, “For the Orthodox theosis is a central theological and religious idea.”4

Sin, the Fall & Salvation
For Eastern Orthodoxy, deification is not merely an adjunct to their theological system; it colors the whole. Orthodoxy’s view of sin, mankind’s fall and salvation differs drastically from key evangelical tenets. Professor Donald Fairbairn, in a sympathetic presentation (quoting Orthodox writers) observes,5 “Orthodoxy holds a somewhat different concept of sin than that of Western Christians. Zernov writes, ‘The East regards sin as only a temporary malady [illness] which hurts man, but does not annihilate his God-like image.’ Auxeutios offers a similar explanation of sin, ‘Man did not ‘fall’ into a state where his nature became sinful. He chose to remain and indulge in his own undeified nature...[Man’s] fall was not from the heights of heaven, but from a precious road; so man is not to be judged too harshly for his error’.” Mankind’s fall was not so serious. Orthodoxy contends that sin is merely a short-term sickness, it did not impart the sinful nature to the human race and it was a minor misstep, a misdemeanor. Along the same lines, Fritz Ridenour maintains,6 the “Orthodox do not agree that man is bound by a totally corrupt, sinful nature. According to the Orthodox, through the Fall, mankind did not inherit guilt through Adam, but instead man inherited death, mortality and corruption. When mankind fell in Adam, it was a ‘departure from the path,’ not a drastic plunge from a state of blessedness.” Hence Orthodoxy rejects Calvin’s dictum of the ‘total depravity of mankind’ (Rom. 3:10-18).

The “Fall of mankind” (Gen. 3) was merely a ‘minor bump in the road,’ an obstacle on the path to deification. So, for the Orthodox, “the fallen state is not drastically different from the original created state; the fallen state is the condition of people who have turned aside from the path they were to follow [--i.e. to theosis]”7

Jesus’ main role for Orthodoxy, is to remove obstacles on the path to man’s deification. Due to this notion, it is not Christ’s atoning death, but rather “The incarnation…[that] is the central redemptive event in Eastern Orthodoxy.”8 Hence, as Orthodoxy’s deification doctrine evolved, there was a subtle “shift in emphasis regarding the decisive saving event, from Jesus’ death as atonement for sin, to his birth & incarnation as the divine taking the human into itself. Despite the Pauline insistence that central to the gospel was the affirmation that ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Cor. 15:3), the creeds shift the focus from the atoning death to incarnation.”9 These developments are far from innocuous.

Justification De-emphasized
Since sin, guilt and condemnation is not a major problems, in Orthodoxy’s view, it follows that redemption (atonement) and justification do not receive the same emphasis as Protestant or evangelical Christianity. Scholars observe that “In Eastern Orthodox soteriology, following Saint Athanasius, the emphasis on salvation is not justification, but divinization.”11 In fact, Paul Gavrilyuk observes that “In most patristic treatments of theosis, justification plays next to no role at all.”12 Fritz Ridenour notes that “Evangelical Protestant scholars believe that the Orthodox deification approach to salvation leaves them practically ignoring the doctrine of justification by faith. For example, [Professor] Donald Fairbairn observes that ‘most elements of the orthodox understanding of salvation actually pertain to sanctification.’ Fairbairn also comments that the major Orthodox ‘proof text’ of deification –2 Peter 1:4—lies in the middle of a passage about sanctification.”13 Thus Dr Fairbairn says, “To use Protestant terminology, one can generalize that the Orthodox understanding of salvation consists mainly of elements related to what we call the process of sanctification (becoming Christ-like)...”14

In Orthodoxy justification by faith is de-emphasized. Moreover justification’s judicial (or forensic) aspect is denigrated and/or denied. This ought not to be surprising; if there is no sin, no guilt, there is no legal case against man as a sinner! The Orthodox pay lip service to justification at times; e.g. one Orthodox scholar says:

“The Orthodox view baptism as both a justifying event and the beginning of theosis [deification]...In the justifying event, believers are given a new identity—are made Christ-like (theosis) through their mystical union with Him in baptism.”15

“Mystical union in baptism,” sounds familiar, though placed in a foreign context. But, the “justifying event,” referred to here, is Orthodoxy’s sacrament of infant baptism; it is not a believing response to Christ’s redemptive death. Orthodoxy is as far from the Reformation’s “justification by faith,” as the East is from West!

Deification—the Path to Sinless Perfection
Since the Fall was a minor detour which did not produce man’s sinful nature, sinless perfection is an attainable goal. In the Orthodox view, people on the path to deification can become sinless: Nicholas Bamford explains that “Deification allows the person to enter ...the Divine state of the Spirit within and without. In this state for Maximus [‘the Confessor,’ AD 580-662], the person is unable to ‘fall’ again...deified persons become sinless by ‘habit of virtue and knowledge’.”16

The Sacramental Path to Perfection/Deification
Despite their ‘high theology’ of deification, Orthodoxy’s practical path to deification is paved with the seven sacraments— infant baptism (which justifies), ‘Chrismation’ where the newly-baptized infant is anointed with specially consecrated oil of myrrh (imparting the Holy Spirit), partaking the Eucharist (the transubstantiated body & blood of Christ), confession, holy orders (ordination to the priesthood, etc), marriage, holy unction (anointing of the sick). Plus there are prayers to the saints and the Virgin Mary, assisted by Orthodox icons.

[2] The Mormon ‘Church of the Latter Day Saints’ [LDS]
Deified Mormons have all divine attributes, do as God does & are as God is

Eastern Orthodoxy is not alone in making deification a central tenet. The Mormon ‘Church of the Latter Day Saints’ [LDS] founded by Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-1844) and based in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, also holds this doctrine. Mormons teach deification—that men can become gods. Ross Anderson calls it the Mormon “grand vision of progress to godhood.” He asserts “the principle of eternal progression toward exaltation [i.e. godhood, deification] remains the cornerstone of the Mormon worldview.”17

This is confirmed by Mormon literature stating that: “The ultimate desire of a Loving Supreme Being [i.e. God] is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter day Saints, the term, ‘godhood’ denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is.”18

Note that exalted (deified) Mormons become God in life, nature and all other respects (with no caveats). They can “do as God does,” creating and ruling, becoming Gods, equal with the original Creator God! Mormons contend that such “Exaltation to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for members of the [Mormon] Church of the First Born.” Moreover, “This exalted status...is available to be received by a man and wife...through the eternal [celestial] marriage covenant of the [Mormon] temple.”19 Jesus asserted that in the resurrection there is no marriage (Matt. 22:30; Luke 20:35). However, Mormons feel free to override Jesus’ teaching with their own extra-biblical canon.

“As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”—Lorenzo Snow (1844)
Eastern Orthodoxy propounds Athanasius’ maxim. Mormons trump that with their own maxim: “’As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” This couplet is attributed to Lorenzo Snow (1814-1910) the 5th President of the LDS Church (1898-1901).21 It is memorized and recited by LDS youth.22

Snow’s maxim summarizes the teaching of Mormon founder, Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-1844). On April 7, 1844, a few months prior to his death, in the course of a funeral address, Smith stated, “God himself was once as were are now, and is an exalted man, who sits in yonder heavens...I am going to tell you how God came to be God.”23

Clearly Mormons echo Athanasius’ notion that man becomes God. In defense of the latter half of their maxim—man’s deification--Mormons appeal to the same Church Fathers cited by Eastern Orthodoxy and also cited by Witness Lee & LSM’s Local Church.24 Yet Mormons go one step beyond Athanasius, claiming “As man is, God once was...” i.e. that God Himself was, at one time, a Man who got promoted (elevated, deified) to become God.

The Mormon maxim’s opening assertion seems to be Joseph’s Smith’s innovation. Smith made the heretical claim that God is a deified Man—currently He is God; but previously He was a man! Consistent with this, Smith argued that “’the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s’...[Thus] reducing the gap between the human and divine.”25 In terms of logic it is simply extends the notion that ‘man becomes God.’ If Christian overcomers (e.g., martyrs like Stephen, James, Peter, & Paul plus the ‘Blessed Virgin Mary’?) have ‘become God,’ there are currently many ‘Gods,’ most of whom were previously men. It is only a slight generalization to allege that all current “Gods” (including the Creator God) were previously men! Such incremental ‘steps of logic,’ go well beyond biblical truth into the realm of heresy. Here is proof that man’s wisdom is foolish in God’s estimation (1 Cor. 1:20, 25).

Humans are ‘Gods in Embryo’
David Rowe summarizes Mormon views, saying, “The person Mormons call Heavenly Father was once a human just like us and simply worked his way up! That’s how he became a god. Furthermore the couplet teaches that every human being can do the same thing if we do the right thing—i.e., if we are obedient to the ‘gospel’ of Mormonism with our lives. That’s why Mormons understand humans to be ...’gods in embryo’—the very stuff of godhood...”26

Mormon’s ‘Felix Culpa’—the Fortunate Fall
Mormons view mankind’s ‘Fall’ (Gen. 3) as a ‘fortune fall,’ a blessing in disguise. They aver that “Adam’s fall was a step downward,” but teach that “it was also a step forward...in the eternal march of human progress [to deification].” Mormon Scripture asserts that, if they had not fallen, Adam & Eve ‘would have had no children ...[and] no joy, for they knew no misery’ (2 Nephi 2:23).”27 By their own admission, the LDS Church “discounts the notion of Original Sin & its ascribed negative impact on humanity...[Adam & Eve] did choose mortality, and [yet] in so doing made it possible for all of us to participate in Heavenly Father’s great, eternal plan,”28 they say.

[3] LSM’s Local Church of Witness Lee
For the Local Church “The ‘diamond’ in the ‘box’ of the Bible is the revelation that in Christ God has become man in order that man might become God...The vast majority of today's Christians neglect [this] crucial point in the Bible...” according to Witness Lee.29 This doctrine has been discussed in detail above.

Conclusions
Our purpose was to ‘set the stage’ for a comparison—including both similarities & differences--between the members of this ‘triad,’ for whom deification is a central dogma and distinguishing characteristic. Both in N. America and elsewhere on the globe, people are more likely to meet young, white-shirted, Mormon [LDS] missionaries proclaiming their ‘high gospel’ of deification, than young, white-shirted, FTT trainees from LSM also proclaiming a ‘high gospel’ of deification. The parallel seems to cry out for a comparison.

Elitist
LSM’s Local Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Mormons’ LDS Church each claim to be the “only true Church,” offering the only path (or at least the highest probability of attaining) to deification. According to LSM’s “blended brothers” the chances of qualifying as ‘an overcomer’ outside the Local Church movement are slim to none. On the other hand, adhering to LSM-endorsed practices—HWMR, LSM’s ‘7 Feasts,’ the FTT-trainings, ITERO, BfA, PSRP, BNPB, ‘prophesying’ regularly in Local Church meetings, etc—enables the “dispensing of the Triune God,” facilitating deification and qualifying one as ‘an overcomer.’ Both Orthodoxy and the LDS Church have their equivalent paths and practices. All members of this triad are elitist.

Extra-biblical Sources
All three members of the triad—Eastern Orthodoxy, the Mormons’ LDS Church and LSM’s Local Church buttress their claims that deification is a biblically-based doctrine with appeals to extra-biblical sources. They all appeal extensively to the Church Fathers of the early centuries, following the original apostles and the NT authors. Athanasius is the usual starting point, accompanied by a supporting cast of Church Fathers. Proof texts from Scripture—2 Peter 1:4; Psalm 82:6, etc.,--‘take a back seat’ in most presentations. This ought to alert us that an extra-biblical notion is being imposed upon Scripture via eisegesis. The Church Fathers’ writings are elevated to equality with Scripture to legitimize this dogma. The Mormon LDS Church explicitly adds the Book of Mormon & other writings to Scripture to validate this doctrine along with their other aberrant teachings. LSM’s Local Church does this implicitly by appealing to the “interpreted Word”—Witness Lee’s ministry, “canonized in 1997,” via LSM’s Recovery Version—alongside God’s “inspired Word,” canonized in AD 497.

Ethics
A crucial dimension of this discussion ought to be the ethical impact of the deification dogma on the attitudes and actions of adherents. The notion of deification narrows, blurs, or eliminates the biblical distinction between God, the Creator, and His creatures (including humankind). Mauro Properzi asserts that deification has the effect of “reducing the gap between the human and divine.”31 Robert Klingenberg warns about the ethical impact of this narrowing, saying, “God, His holiness, His righteousness, and His justice are no longer impressive or imposing when you are a god yourself. The fear of God becomes non-existent. That is why the confession of sin and asking God for forgiveness in the ‘We Are Gods’ church services is seldom, if ever, done. After all, gods seldom blow it. And if they do goof up, they will just shake hands as gods with God, and the rare infraction is forgotten.”32 Certainly for Mormons, since God was once a Man and we are men becoming Gods, the Creator-creature distance is narrowed and is ultimately destined to be eliminated.

What are the ethical effects of LSM’s deification dogma? Witness Lee knew how to incite a congregation; he used his rhetorical skills to promote deification, saying, “We may be able to say that we ‘become like God’ in life & nature, but do we have the boldness to say that we ‘become God’ in life & nature? ...Have you not been born of man? Then are you not man?...In the same way, since we are born of God...are we not God?...Since we are born of God, we may say and even we should say that we are God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.”33 After such messages, hordes of young people spilled into the streets of Anaheim, CA., declaring “I am God! I am God!” They wakened residents and disturbed neighbors. However, it is doubtful that anyone was convinced that these trainees were being deified! Moreover, most observers were unimpressed by the ethical impact of LSM’s deification dogma. Will the long-term ethical effects of LSM’s deification dogma be any better?


Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, CANADA
May, 2016


Notes: Thanks to those commenting on earlier drafts. The author alone is responsible for the contents of this piece. The views expressed here are solely the author’s and should not be attributed to any believers, elders, co-workers or churches he is associated with.
0. Witness Lee, Living a Life According to the High Peak of God's Revelation, Ch. 5, Sect. 2 (emphasis. added)
1. “We in the local churches hold that man may become God in God's salvation,” says LSM’s Kerry Robichaux, adding, “We are persuaded by our study of the Word of God and by our understanding of God's economy. We are also confirmed by the ancient testimony of the church.” [Kerry S. Robichaux, Truth Concerning the Ultimate Goal of God's Economy, Ch. 1, Sect. 10]
2. Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, p.
3. Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd ed. p.
4. Joseph A. Burgess, Jeffrey Gros, Growing Consensus: Church Dialogues in the United States, 1962-1991, Vol. 1, p. 359
5. Donald Fairbairn, Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes, pp. 74-75 (emphasis added)
6. Fritz Ridenour, So What's the Difference? p. 64 (emphasis added)
7. Donald Fairbairn, Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes, p. 76
8. Kelly M. Kapic, & Bruce L. McCormack, Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic & Historical Introduction, p. 285
9. James D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity, p. 822
10. [Blank]
11. Douglas M. Beaumont (ed.) Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians & Their Paths to Rome, p. note 32 (emphasis added)
12. Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “The Retrieval of Deification: How a Once-despised Archaism became an Ecumenical Disideratum,” Modern Theology, Vol. 25:4 (Oct. 2009) p. 653
13. Fritz Ridenour, So What's the Difference? p. 65
14. Donald Fairbairn, Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes, p. 92
15. [Stanley N. Gundry, James J. Stamoolis & J. I. Packer, Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy & Evangelicalism, p. 39 (emphasis added)]
16. Nicholas Bamford, Deified Person: A Study of Deification in Relation to Person & Christian Becoming, (2011) p. 154 (emphasis added)
17. Ross Anderson, Understanding Your Mormon Neighbor: A Quick Christian Guide ..., p.
18. Mormonism 2010 Handbook on Mormonism, p. 404 (emphasis added)
19. Mormonism 2010 Handbook on Mormonism, p. 404
20. [Blank]
21. LDS President Lorenzo Snow often referred to this couplet as having been revealed to him by inspiration during the Nauvoo period of the church. See, for example, Deseret Weekly, 3 November 1894, 610; Deseret Weekly, 8 October 1898, 513; Deseret News, 15 June 1901, 177; and Journal History of the Church, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, 20 July 1901, p. 4. See also “’As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’ God is a deified Man; man’s deification depends on the Mormon sacraments [Mormon baptism, etc].” [Patrick W. Carey, Joseph T. Lienhard, “Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-1844)” Biographical Dict. of Christian Theologians, p. 470]
22. Mormonism 2010 Handbook on Mormonism, p. 404
23. Susan Wolverton, Having Visions: Book of Mormon Translated & Exposed in Plain English, p. 107
24. See for e.g. Terryl Givens, The Latter-day Saint Experience in America, p. 111
25. Mauro Properzi, Mormonism & the Emotions: Analysis of LDS Scriptural Texts, p. 70
26. David L. Rowe, I Love Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-day Saints, p. 56 (emphasis original)
27. Daniel K. Judd, “The Fortunate Fall of Adam & Eve,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 297–328.
28. Daniel K. Judd, “The Fortunate Fall of Adam & Eve,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues
29. Witness Lee, Life-study of 1 & 2 Sam., pp. 203-204
30. [Blank]
31. Mauro Properzi, Mormonism & the Emotions: Analysis of LDS Scriptural Texts, p. 70
32. Robert Klingenberg, Modern Christianity Corrupted, p.
33. W. Lee, Move of God in Man, Message 2, pp. 20-21, (emphasis added).

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

-

[InChristAlone]

I don't have time to comment everything. I'd just recommend to study Orthodoxy from original sources. Anyway, let me leave some explanation.

Orthodoxy teaches that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. They were to develop into the likeness of God. When they sinned in Paradise, the image of God was tarnished, disfigured (although not totally lost or destroyed), and the capability to develop into the likeness was lost as sin, evil and death now reigned. Thus, mankind became diseased or sick, i.e. corrupted and mortal. Jesus through His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection reunited mankind with God by healing the sickness and destroying our enemy death through His Death, becoming the life-giving spirit. The Lord, the last Adam, succeeded in doing what the first Adam failed in.

Originally Posted by Tomes

According to the Orthodox, through the Fall, mankind did not inherit guilt through Adam, but instead man inherited death, mortality and corruption. When mankind fell in Adam, it was a ‘departure from the path,’ not a drastic plunge from a state of blessedness.” Hence Orthodoxy rejects Calvin’s dictum of the ‘total depravity of mankind’ (Rom. 3:10-18).

That's true. In Orthodoxy the term ancestral sin is preferred (to Original Sin) and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through baptism. It means we are not guilty of what Adam's guilt but we bear the consequences (sickness).

"The Orthodox Church presents a view of sin distinct from views found in Roman Catholicism and in Protestantism, that sin is viewed primarily as a terminal spiritual sickness, rather than a state of guilt, a self-perpetuating illness which distorts the whole human being and energies, corrupts the Image of God inherent in those who bear the human nature, diminishes the divine likeness within them, disorients their understanding of the world as it truly is, and distracts a person from fulfilling his natural potential to become deified in communion with God." - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by Tomes

Orthodoxy’s view of sin, mankind’s fall and salvation differs drastically from key evangelical tenets. Professor Donald Fairbairn, in a sympathetic presentation (quoting Orthodox writers) observes,5 “Orthodoxy holds a somewhat different concept of sin than that of Western Christians.

That's correct. Protestants hold to Roman Catholic concept of sin which is different from Eastern Orthodox. "The Biblical Greek term for sin, αμαρτία (amartia), means "sin": it implies that one's aim is out and that one has not reached the goal, one's fullest potential. As in Western Christianity, in Eastern Orthodoxy the goal is union with God. Orthodoxy also understands sin as a disease of the soul, a condition where the soul is lacking in God's grace. Union with God, as made possible through Christ, is the ultimate medicine." - Wikipedia

"Most Orthodox theologians reject the idea of ‘original guilt,’ put forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church. Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam. Many western Christians believe that whatever a man does in his fallen and unredeemed state, since it is tainted by original guilt, cannot possibly be pleasing to God: ‘Works before Justification,’ says the thirteenth of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, ‘...are not pleasant to God ... but have the nature of sin.’ Orthodox would hesitate to say this. And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting games of Hell (Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the fall, on the whole followed Augustine, and in particular retained the idea of original guilt; but as regards unbaptized babies, he maintained that they go not to Hell but to Limbo — a view now generally accepted by Roman theologians. So far as I can discover, Orthodox writers do not make use of the idea of Limbo.The Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less sombre than the Augustinian or Calvinist view.

But although Orthodox maintain that man after the fall still possessed free will and was still capable of good actions, yet they certainly agree with the west in believing that man’s sin had set up between him and God a barrier, which man by his own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since man could not come to God, God came to man." (Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware)

Originally Posted by Tomes

Mankind’s fall was not so serious. Orthodoxy contends that sin is merely a short-term sickness, it did not impart the sinful nature to the human race and it was a minor misstep, a misdemeanor.

That's not true. Mankind’s fall was extremely serious. If it were not serious, God would not come to earth. He could have just sent a prophet or an angel. Besides, how can this sickness be short-term if it's as long as the history of mankind?

Originally Posted by Tomes

“Orthodox do not agree that man is bound by a totally corrupt, sinful nature.

That's right. This concept would be accepted by Witness Lee who believed that human body/flash was of Satan but Orthodoxy rejects such a radical view on mankind. The Orthodox believe that, while the Fall was a disaster that plunged mankind into sin, they do not agree that man is bound by a totally corrupt, sinful nature.

"Orthodoxy, holding as it does a less exalted idea of man’s state before he fell, is also less severe than the west in its view of the consequences of the fall. Adam fell, not from a great height of knowledge and perfection, but from a state of undeveloped simplicity; hence he is not to be judged too harshly for his error. Certainly, as a result of the fall man’s mind became so darkened, and his will-power was so impaired, that he could no longer hope to attain to the likeness of God. Orthodox, however, do not hold that the fall deprived man entirely of God’s grace, though they would say that after the fall grace acts on man from the outside, not from within. Orthodox do not say, as Calvin said, that man after the fall was utterly depraved and incapable of good desires. They cannot agree with Augustine, when he writes that man is under ‘a harsh necessity’ of committing sin, and that ‘man’s nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell, and so came to lack freedom’. The image of God is distorted by sin, but never destroyed; in the words of a hymn sung by Orthodox at the Funeral Service for the laity: ‘I am the image of Thine inexpressible glory, even though I bear the wounds of sin.’ And because he still retains the image of God, man still retains free will, although sin restricts its scope. Even after the fall, God ‘takes not away from man the power to will — to will to obey or not to obey Him’. Faithful to the idea of synergy, Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for human freedom." (Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Tomes

Fritz Ridenour maintains, the “Orthodox do not agree that man is bound by a totally corrupt, sinful nature. According to the Orthodox, through the Fall, mankind did not inherit guilt through Adam, but instead man inherited death, mortality and corruption. When mankind fell in Adam, it was a ‘departure from the path,’ not a drastic plunge from a state of blessedness.” Hence Orthodoxy rejects Calvin’s dictum of the ‘total depravity of mankind’ (Rom. 3:10-18).

But if Augustine and Calvin hold to total depravity of mankind, why should I follow their logical trains? They (Calvin and Augustine) are totally depraved, and their logic is thus distorted. Or is their logic somehow unquestionable, post-redemption? They have 'oracular' status, like that of Darby, Nee and Lee to come after them? Anyone who questions them is fallen; they alone have the light? I think not. Wake up and listen to yourselves. You don't have the inside track on human thought. You can look, and think, and hold forth, yes; but so can everyone else. Including the EO, and others.

To make sense of the Bible the proponents of this position need a vastly truncated scripture. Jesus taught that infants angels' were constantly beholding the face of the Father in heaven, but Calvin's reading of total hopeless depravity had them destined for the pit from birth. Or 'Limbo'. So what gives?

What gives is scripture; where the theology can't hold up to scripture, scripture is studiously ignored. I found this out in the LC: bring up the 'wrong verses' and you get a blank stare, and silence. Bringing up the 'wrong verses' in the LC means that you're not compliant; that you're questioning God's oracle; that you have a dark heart; that you're rebellious and trying to draw others after yourself.

Originally Posted by Tomes

Fritz Ridenour notes that “Evangelical Protestant scholars believe that the Orthodox deification approach to salvation leaves them practically ignoring the doctrine of justification by faith. For example, [Professor] Donald Fairbairn observes that ‘most elements of the orthodox understanding of salvation actually pertain to sanctification.’

Salvation ultimately includes the salvation of the soul and transformation of the body. So that the term 'salvation' is operationally linked to 'sanctification' shouldn't be too shocking. I'm an Evangelical Protestant by birth, and affiliation, and am not a proponent of deification as an idea. But I don't really think the argument is too compelling, here.

[aron]

The other problem I have with Tomes' idea of "blasphemy" is that the ones he cites initially, the Jews, thought it "blasphemy" to treat Jesus as equivalent to God. Tomes notes that this is a "breach" in monotheism, but glosses over it. Not to mention the Trinity! Even worse!

So if Tomes wants to use them as his source of "blasphemy", then he's painting himself with the same brush.

Let's think of the unbelievers, here. How are any of them being helped by this conversation? I don't really get it.

[InChristAlone]

I posted this comment to the thread about the Orthodox Church. But I think it will be appropriate here as well:

Philippians 3:20-21
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables Him to bring everything under His control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body.

1 Corinthians 15:52
in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

2 Peter 1:3 (KJV)
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

Man can't be of the same essence with God. We will always be the creature, and never the Creator. God will remain God, and we will remain His people. But I believe the fullness of Christ is much more than just spiritual growth. Becoming a partaker of our humanity, Christ opened the way for us to become partakers in His divinity. “For as He is, so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17).

Romans 6:3-6
Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be raised together in the likeness of His resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that we should no longer be the slaves of sin.

The verses above say that we will one day inherit a new resurrection body, just like the body of the risen Christ. It will be spiritual, glorious, holy, imperishable, immortal, and not inclined to sin. Isn't it deification?

[OBW]

OK. Getting blank editing box when hitting "Quote," so doing it this way:

From ICA:

Orthodoxy teaches that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. They were to develop into the likeness of God. When they sinned in Paradise, the image of God was tarnished, disfigured (although not totally lost or destroyed), and the capability to develop into the likeness was lost as sin, evil and death now reigned. Thus, mankind became diseased or sick, i.e. corrupted and mortal. Jesus through His Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection reunited mankind with God by healing the sickness and destroying our enemy death through His Death, becoming the life-giving spirit. The Lord, the last Adam, succeeded in doing what the first Adam failed in.

I honestly believe that this is much more faithful to the creation and fall, including the purpose of man and the result of salvation and moving forward from there.

But I disagree with the idea that developing into the likeness of God equates to any kind of deification. Maybe it is just bad terminology more than bad theology. We consider deification to mean becoming connected to the essence of God. But that is not the picture. It is not that we become more stars with original light, but moons that reflect the light of the one who is deity. Leave the deification out and the EO has a much better grasp on the purpose of man than so much of Protestantism, especially the Evangelical part.

Well, despite the justifications given, I cannot agree on the icons in the way the EO does. I think that much of the argument they make is true. But there is something unsettling about such a need for them. I agree that anything that leads you to God (and not to the icon or to a false god) is positive. But there is something about the manner in which things become accepted icons that is very unsettling. It demonstrates to me a significant lack of focus on what matters.


Then from aron:

But if Augustine and Calvin hold to total depravity of mankind, why should I follow their logical trains? They (Calvin and Augustine) are totally depraved, and their logic is thus distorted. Or is their logic somehow unquestionable, post-redemption? Like that of Darby, Nee and Lee to come after them? Anyone who questions them is fallen; they alone have the light? I think not. Wake up and listen to yourselves. You don't have the inside track on human thought. You can look, and think, and hold forth, but so can everyone else.

To make sense of the Bible the proponents of this position need a vastly truncated scripture. Jesus taught that infants angels' were constantly beholding the face of the Father in heaven; Calvin's logic of total hopeless depravity had them destined for the pit from birth. So what gives?

What gives is scripture; where the theology can't hold up to scripture, scripture is studiously ignored. I found this out in the LC: bring up the 'wrong verses' and you get a blank stare, and silence.

Quite observant with respect to both the roots (Calvin, Augustine, etc.) and the present (The LCM, among other extreme sects). Everyone has it completely figured out. I'm having this argument in the Alternate topics where there is a discussion concerning the problem of evil (POE). The argument is based upon a declaration that all these things claimed about God are actually true, and that God is, by definition, required to act in a manner consistent with those characteristics such that He would never allow evil to exist, even going so far as to stop it before it happens.

But that means that God is what we want him to be according to our image of perfection.

Sort of like the old saying that goes something like "God created man in His image and we have been returning the favor ever since."

I suggest that the correct doctrine (or more properly, truth) is probably a mix of Calvinism and Arminianism, EO, RCC, and virtually all Protestantism, with a little of the less clearly heretical thoughts of the Gnostics thrown in for good measure. But truth is not for knowing except to the extent that it informs our living (and oddly, this is where the EO and more liturgical and confessional groups shine) in everything that we do. While there is a place for those who have a true calling to preach, missions, etc., all of us should treat everything about all parts of our lives as if they are spiritual. From driving, to how we treat those that we consider immoral, to how we do business, work for a boss, love and argue with our spouses, and so on.

And when we think of it in terms of knowing for the purpose of informing our living, so many of the specifics of Calvinism v Arminianism become virtually irrelevant. All I know is that I have to believe and obey. Not just be able to point to where I believed (past tense). John 3:16 does not declare "that whosoever believed in me" but "whosoever believes in me." All those declarations of "once saved, always saved" do not respond to "believes." Only declares that "believed" can be substituted for current belief.

[InChristAlone]

Thank you Mike.

Originally Posted by OBW

But I disagree with the idea that developing into the likeness of God equates to any kind of deification. Maybe it is just bad terminology more than bad theology. We consider deification to mean becoming connected to the essence of God.

I think it is the terminology. Deification is man’s union with God, wherein we participate in the uncreated energies of the Trinity. We don't participate in God’s essence. Rather we are transformed into the likeness of Christ through participation in His grace, i.e., divine energies. It is a process when we are becoming less earthly and more spiritual, Christ-like.

The footnote commentary in the Orthodox Study Bible for 2 Peter 1:4 reads:

This [Theosis] does not mean we become divine by nature. If we participated in God’s essence, the distinction between God and man would be abolished. What this does mean is that we participate in God’s energy, described by a number of terms in scripture, such as glory, life, love, virtue, and power. We are to become like God by His grace and truly His adopted children, but never becoming God by nature.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Tomes

The Local Church movement began by emphasizing The Normal Christian Life and The Normal Christian Church Life (W. Nee). However, the ‘Lord’s Recovery,’ under the leadership of Witness Lee (Li Changshou) --the ‘Minister of the Age’ --was never content to be ‘normal;’ it was never satisfied simply to be one among many diverse expressions of Christ’s Church. The Local Church always claimed a privileged status—whether the sacramental ‘ground of locality’ or the highest revelation.

Anyone who had spent any time meeting with the local churches would know this to be true. There is always a need for local churches to view themselves head and shoulders over everyone else. Usually applied by putting everyone else down. Whether fellow churches within your own locality or fellow servants such as Greg Laurie, Billy Graham, etc. Speaking on Billy Graham, it is really funny from the ironic sense ones I've known to criticize Billy Graham when I was a pre-teen the same one would express appreciation for Billy Graham's evangelism only after leaving LC fellowship. The LC group think system just doesn't permit appreciation for the Lord's fellow servants outside the LSM/LC system. If Witness Lee,Ron Kangas, etc criticizes Billy Graham, then it sanctions all those in the recovery to ridicule. Understand this is all done in order to say "we alone are God's move on the earth. We in the recovery are the sole expression." Look around at LC demographics. Those who meet there, what do you see?