What is God's Economy?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Bible does not teach deification, it prohibits this teaching.

The principle in Scripture is one of God joining himself to man:
1 Cor 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him"

As a Christian do you call yourself a son of God? If so then you are really calling yourself "god". That is why Jews and Muslims would stone you for saying that.

If your father is a cat, then clearly, you are a cat.
If God is your Father, then clearly, you are "a god".

God is not simply restoring mankind back to their original condition in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were human but they did not have God's Spirit. When God joins himself to a person they become both human and divine.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As a Christian do you call yourself a son of God? If so then you are really calling yourself "god". That is why Jews and Muslims would stone you for saying that.

If your father is a cat, then clearly, you are a cat.
If God is your Father, then clearly, you are "a god".

A hasty conclusion, is it not?

The Bible tells us we adopted as sons.
Eph 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will

A silly example, but I've seen videos on Youtube of dogs 'adopting' kittens, etc. The point is, though God is our Father, that doesn't translate into us being 'God'.

[least]

Re: What is God's economy?
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjN8lyDlAdo
*
6.01 min
This is science, the science of fruit bearing, and so 1 person in 5 years becomes 13 persons. and you multiplied yourself 12 times. This is divine economy.

Is God's economy different to divine economy?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by least

Re: What is God's economy?
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjN8lyDlAdo
*
6.01 min
This is science, the science of fruit bearing, and so 1 person in 5 years becomes 13 persons. and you multiplied yourself 12 times. This is divine economy.

Is God's economy different to divine economy?

I suddenly feel like the AFLAC duck after hearing Leo Durocher talking about the difference between money and cash.

Totally befuddling.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A hasty conclusion, is it not?

The Bible tells us we adopted as sons.
Eph 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will

A silly example, but I've seen videos on Youtube of dogs 'adopting' kittens, etc. The point is, though God is our Father, that doesn't translate into us being 'God'.

I note this has already been discussed to some extent here:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=615

This is about whether or not we are considered sons of God because of our legal status as being ones accepted into God's household (a place we don't naturally belong), or are we sons of God because we are "born again".
I believe it is both. Objectively there is the legal adoption, and subjectively there is the inward change to be like Christ.
Protestants, especially evangelicals tend to stress the objective aspect, whereas inner life groups such as the LR stresses the inward change.
There is a third aspect here which is that we are sons of God only if we are led by the Spirit:
"but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Romans 8:13-14)."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The principle in Scripture is one of God joining himself to man:
1 Cor 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him"
As a Christian do you call yourself a son of God? If so then you are really calling yourself "god". That is why Jews and Muslims would stone you for saying that.
If your father is a cat, then clearly, you are a cat.
If God is your Father, then clearly, you are "a god".
God is not simply restoring mankind back to their original condition in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were human but they did not have God's Spirit. When God joins himself to a person they become both human and divine.

Evangelical

1. I asked you to show me a credible definition of Deification that was not blasphemous. I will take your silence to mean that you did not find another definition.
2. I accused Witness Lee of practicing deceit when he taught “deification” out of one mouth, said that it wasn’t “deification” out of another mouth, and admitted that the use of this term was blasphemy. I will take your silence on this point to be tacit agreement that Witness Lee was deceitful.

So then, let us now consider what you did say.

First — the principle of Witness Lee’s doctrine of deification, man becomes God, is that “he who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit with Him”. I am joined to the Lord, and my spirit is outraged that Witness Lee would not continue in the teaching of the apostles. The principle that I see here is 1Jn 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

The apostles taught all the things that you have mentioned without ever once teaching that man becomes God. They taught sanctification, they taught godliness. Witness Lee conveniently forgets anything to with how we ought to behave. The apostles say that we don’t know what we will be, yet Witness Lee in his arrogance does. If you want to continue in the apostles teaching you can say “we will be like Him” and you can say that we are son’s of God, but the minute you talk about deification and man becoming God you have ceased to continue with the Apostles and by going out you make it plain you are not of the apostles.

Witness Lee’s cleverly devised fables of cats and the garden of eden, and apple trees having the nature of apples are designed to turn people from the truth. Although the apostles did not teach deification, the New Testament does refer to some who did:

Rev 2:20 But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.

We have been charged to keep the Lord’s table and to do that we must flee from idols (1Cor 10:14).

1 Cor 10:19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.

Deification is a doctrine of demons.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical
1. I asked you to show me a credible definition of Deification that was not blasphemous. I will take your silence to mean that you did not find another definition.

Apologies for my rudeness in not responding, there have been many people posting, I intended to respond but other topics drew my attention away.

Deification in one form or another was believed by Martin Luther, and many many early church fathers, and continues to be believed today in the major Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican). As such, to lay blame on Lee for this teaching and to use it as a point to damn his whole ministry and the Lord's Recovery, is to forget the long history of this teaching and it may not be as blasphemous as you might think.

In fact, to deny such a long history of this doctrine in the church is to show ones own ignorance in the matter.

Lee's view is summed up by 2 Peter 2:4. We partake of God's divine life and nature. He published the book 'DEIFICATION—BECOMING GOD
IN LIFE AND IN NATURE BUT NOT IN THE GODHEAD'.

Lee explained it to be no more than stated in 2 Peter 2:4.

It is easy to show that Lee's understanding does not go beyond the belief of the early church and even Martin Luther and CS Lewis.

This is a sample quote from this study about Luther and Theosis:

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/marq...andtheosis.pdf

In an early (1515) Christmas sermon, Luther notes:
As the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary that the flesh
should also become Word. For just for this reason does the Word
become flesh, in order that the flesh might become Word. In other
words: God becomes man, in order that man should become God.
Thus strength becomes weak in order that weakness might become
strong. The Logos puts on our form and figure and image and
likeness, in order that He might clothe us with His image, form,
likeness. Thus wisdom becomes foolish, in order that foolishness
might become wisdom, and so in all other things which are in God
and us, in all of which He assumes ours in order to confer upon us
His [things].

But before we cry "blasphemy!" let us consider the facts:

Deification has been believed in the church since the day dot.

I find this a good article, not too hard to read:
http://www.dualravens.com/fullerlife/theosis.htm

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
"[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.
"[H]e who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher—made a god going about in flesh."
"And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity...

Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430)
"'For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.'[John 1:12] If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
"[Men] were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest."

Even (almost) everyones favourite book author CS Lewis believed in it:

"The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said"

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), 18.

In short, Lee's teaching on the matter of deification is no more than that already believed in Christianity since the early church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Deification in one form or another was believed by Martin Luther, and many many early church fathers, and continues to be believed today in the major Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican). As such, to lay blame on Lee for this teaching and to use it as a point to damn his whole ministry and the Lord's Recovery, is to forget the long history of this teaching and it may not be as blasphemous as you might think.

How ironic.

Lee claimed that his "high peaks" were the consummation of the recovery of lost truths in scripture. Now Evangelical wants me to accept that lots of Christians have been believing this all along!

How can you positively reference degraded Christianity which your leader regularly condemned as "hopeless and helpless?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In fact, to deny such a long history of this doctrine in the church is to show ones own ignorance in the matter.

Thank you for reminding me that I am ignorant, we all need to be humbled.

All of this may be true, but as a basis to accept a doctrine as not being blasphemous it is what James referred to as "having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons". We have been specifically told not to do that, both by James and Paul. So I am going to treat this as an interesting aside, but essentially irrelevant to answering my question.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee's view is summed up by 2 Peter 2:4. We partake of God's divine life and nature. He published the book 'DEIFICATION—BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND IN NATURE BUT NOT IN THE GODHEAD'.
Lee explained it to be no more than stated in 2 Peter 2:4.

Once again I will repeat, Witness Lee does not get to tell me that the word idol does not mean idol. Likewise he cannot tell me that the word "deification" does not mean "deification". He can create a new word, perhaps "Witlessification" and define it any way he pleases. Or, he can use the New Testament term "Sanctification" and use the New Testament definition which includes 2Pet 2:4. I am well aware of how Witness Lee explained his deceit. However, it is deceit and I reject it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is easy to show that Lee's understanding does not go beyond the belief of the early church and even Martin Luther and CS Lewis.
This is a sample quote from this study about Luther and Theosis:
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/marq...andtheosis.pdf

My brother, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But before we cry "blasphemy!" let us consider the facts:
Deification has been believed in the church since the day dot.

Like the fact that Witness Lee called it Blasphemy in the Galatians training?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I find this a good article, not too hard to read:
http://www.dualravens.com/fullerlife/theosis.htm
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)
C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), 18.
In short, Lee's teaching on the matter of deification is no more than that already believed in Christianity since the early church.

Hold it, you reject the things Christianity teaches and believes in when it is convenient for you to judge them (the proper ground) but the fact that others have fallen for this deification doctrine is a basis for you to accept it. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

I do not know what we will be like. I do know that we are being sanctified, we are being transformed, and that we shall be like Him. I also know that we need to keep ourselves from idols, that we cannot partake of the cup of the Lord and the cup of idols. I know that false prophets like Jezebel and Balaam teach believers to eat things sacrificed to idols and I know that Jesus rebuked the believers who tolerate Jezebel or Balaam. Finally I know that false prophets are revealed when they do not continue in the apostles teaching but go out from that teaching. Deification is a very clear example of Witness Lee going out from the apostle's teaching.

[Evangelical]

Regardless of what Lee called it and the semantics of the words, he explained what it meant, and so to continue to argue that he meant something which he said he did not mean, is wrong. It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy. If you think there is, well stone us for blasphemy, I don't care.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regardless of what Lee called it and the semantics of the words, he explained what it meant, and so to continue to argue that he meant something which he said he did not mean, is wrong. It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy. If you think there is, well stone us for blasphemy, I don't care.

Despise -- to regard unworthy of ones notice.

Matt 18:6 but whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh! 8 And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire. 10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regardless of what Lee called it and the semantics of the words, he explained what it meant, and so to continue to argue that he meant something which he said he did not mean, is wrong. It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy. If you think there is, well stone us for blasphemy, I don't care.

So you have chosen to agree to disagree.

Let me ask you a different question then: what is the line that you will not tolerate a "Bible teacher" to cross? Jesus rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating that woman Jezebel. Jesus has a line that He feels a person should not tolerate others to cross. Paul said "their mouths must be stopped" so Paul also had a line.

Can you tell us what is the line that you would not tolerate a so called "Bible teacher" to cross?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you have chosen to agree to disagree.

Let me ask you a different question then: what is the line that you will not tolerate a "Bible teacher" to cross? Jesus rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating that woman Jezebel. Jesus has a line that He feels a person should not tolerate others to cross. Paul said "their mouths must be stopped" so Paul also had a line.

Can you tell us what is the line that you would not tolerate a so called "Bible teacher" to cross?

Today I was reading I John. John also confronted this same issue. His "line in the sand" was in 4.1-3. I think that would be within the bounds of Jesus' word to Thyatira, and Paul's instructions to Titus.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy.

How is Godhead separated from God? How do you know you are a god (God) without a godhead (Godhead)?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

How is Godhead separated from God? How do you know you are a god (God) without a godhead (Godhead)?

Great question. It is the difference between Jesus being the Son of God, and you and I being sons of God (if we are believers, that is).

It is the difference between God being the Judge, and we being judges.
The difference between Christ our High Priest and King of Kings, and us being priests and kings.

Revelation 5:10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood..."

Luke 19:17 "'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

This is really a process over time, described in Romans 8:29:

Romans 8:29 says For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

It will not be completed until we receive immortal (and godly) bodies like Christ:

1 Cor 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

1 Cor 15:54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

When we become immortal, we become "gods", essentially. Think of it, do mere mortals live forever? No. Do mere mortals rule the earth? No. Do mere mortals judge even the angels? No.

Now consider, that God is the only Judge:
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?


Yet later, as "gods", God will give us the privileged to judge the world and angels:

1 Cor 6:2 Or do you not know that the Lord's people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Judging is a role really reserved for God Almighty alone, especially for His angels.

Humans now are lower than angels but will be crowned, or immortalized later:
Hebrews 2:7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor

Yet it says right there in 1 Cor 6:3 we will judge angels. Therefore we have become like "gods".

I like the way CS Lewis describes it:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), 18

I like this statement by him and makes me think that the poor and despised of this world such as the homeless, will one day be ruling over the Earth in their immortalized and god-like bodies:

1 Cor 1:26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.
1 Cor 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.


C.S. Lewis stated in his book, "Mere Christianity" as follows:

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 174—75.

Jews and Muslims do not accept Christians calling themselves "sons of God" because they know what it means - that we become like God.

Unfortunately because of this truth being suppressed by Satan about humankind's true destiny, many in Christianity today do not know their bible and what it means to call themselves a son of God. They think salvation merely means to go to heaven and have no concept of what lies beyond that.