Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Interesting that Mr E. would use Ben Blackwell's little "Shortread" as some sort of confirmation or proof text for Witness Lee's unbiblical teaching. But since he mentioned Blackwell, let's see how an actual, bonafied, professionally trained theologian handles such advanced concepts:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God. Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical

To be a son of God, then, means being a god, in some sense. These interpreters knew that God did not have numerous children by nature (this status is reserved for his only-begotten Son). Reading this passage within the biblical narrative, they affirmed that these gods were children in a different way—by adoption and by grace.

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.
(all emphasis mine)

Notice how Blackwell is careful to point out that the biblical concept of divinization (theosis) is "ALWAYS METAPHORICAL". Notice his precise language of "Because they are gods by grace, AS OPPOSED TO NATURE". Compare and contrast this precise and accurate exposition to Witness Lee's sloppy and confusing development of this advanced concept. Again, Lee had no business getting into such theological matters as theosis. He was totally unqualified.
-

Nice try but its not contradicting anything because he is only making the point that we are sons of God by faith. Jesus was the son of God by birth.

The term born again is always metaphorical as well. The reality is that the Spirit joins our spirit.

We are gods by grace. We are not literally born a son of God like the incarnate Christ. That is all he is saying. We will never have both divine and human essence as Christ has, we are only human partaking of the divine nature.

In spirit however it is not metaphorical..it is reality. The born again experience is not a metaphor in spirit.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nice try but its not contradicting anything because he is only making the point that we are sons of God by faith. Jesus was the son of God by birth.

Mr E, have you read today's "Witness Wednesday" quote?
"Since we are born of God..ARE WE NOT GOD?"
"we may say and even we should say that we are God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

Again, compare and contrast with Blackwell (a bonafide theologian)
In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.

If you'll stop pray-reading Witness Lee for a few minutes and just read (prayerfully or not) Blackwell, you will see the blatant contradiction in Lee. One guy is giving us the evangelical, orthodox understanding/teaching, and the other guy is giving us his unorthodox, unbiblical, make-it-up-as-you-go-along "theology".
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr E, have you read today's "Witness Wednesday" quote?
"Since we are born of God..ARE WE NOT GOD?"
"we may say and even we should say that we are God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

Again, compare and contrast with Blackwell (a bonafide theologian)
In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God.

If you'll stop pray-reading Witness Lee for a few minutes and just read (prayerfully or not) Blackwell, you will see the blatant contradiction in Lee. One guy is giving us the evangelical, orthodox understanding/teaching, and the other guy is giving us his unorthodox, unbiblical, make-it-up-as-you-go-along "theology".
-

Had you taken the time to read the whole article by Blackwell, you would find that your accusations are baseless. It does not matter how good your theologians are if you cannot read and interpret them properly.

Blackwell here defines what he means by God by nature:

In other words, believers do not become a member of the Trinity—that is, they do not become God by nature.

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace.


So Blackwell's meaning of "God by nature" is to be a member of the Trinity.

It is well known that Lee said "God in life and nature but not in the Godhead".

So Blackwell and Lee are not contradictory. I prefer Lee's definition because the term Godhead is actually found in the Bible, but the term Trinity is not.

If we take the time to understand what they both mean by the word "nature" we will see they are talking about different things. Blackwell is only making the point that no one apart from Christ is incarnated or will become an incarnated being like Christ and a member of the Trinity.

Lee is talking about the inward nature and in a way which fits with the orthodox interpretation. That is, we partake of the nature of God like a metal sword (humanity) being forged in fire (divinity). The metal sword of itself is not divine (we are not divine in our created nature, as Blackwell is saying), but it does become divine in a sense when the metal undergoes a process of change, when it is heated by fire, glowing red hot. Instead of metal, Lee used the burning bush analogy if I remember correctly.


As already shown, Blackwell is clearly using the term "God by nature" to refer to being a part of the Trinity. Now let's look at what else Blackwell is saying:


"Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves."

Lee is implicated as a heretic if any of these statements hold true. So let's test that:

Does Lee believe we are gods by nature (where nature in this sense means being a part of the Trinity) - No!

Does Lee believe we "create salvation ourselves? - No!

I see nothing here in Blackwell that contradicts Lee.

I understand that Lee as a non-theologian may use words loosely which have a precise definition in academia, and these may seem to contradict if we compare them side by side. But consider the intent behind the words and consider what Lee is not saying. He is not saying we can "create salvation ourselves and become gods by created nature". He is not saying we become part of the Godhead or Trinity.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Blackwell here defines what he means by God by nature:
In other words, believers do not become a member of the Trinity—that is, they do not become God by nature.
So Blackwell's meaning of "God by nature" is to be a member of the Trinity.

No, Mr. E. you're pretty clueless on what Blackwell meant. Well, you're either clueless, or trying to be clever by only quoting the part that seems to agree with Witness Lee's unorthodox, unbiblical teaching regarding this matter. (for your sake I'm going to assume it's the former not the later)

Here's the part you left out (intentionally or not):
So although theosis depicts the reality of a stage in salvation,it is a metaphor in that believers are only adopted as gods by grace. Furthermore, it is through this adoption that believers are literally transformed into the image of Christ.

Opps! There's that word "metaphor" used again. (Witness Lee was famous for using metaphors when he should have gone with the literal, and using the literal with he should have employed the metaphor.) Also, note how Blackwell ALWAYS uses a small "g" when taking about believers being "god". Conversely, it should be noticed how Witness Lee always used a capital "G" when talking about believers being "God". This is the difference between an educated, trained and biblically precise theologian, and a man like Witness Lee who thought that God has somehow granted him special privileges to just makeup stuff out of the blue. Even his super-mentor, Watchman Nee, never taught anything like Lee did in this matter.

I understand that Lee as a non-theologian may use words loosely which have a precise definition in academia, and these may seem to contradict if we compare them side by side.

So how did a "non-theologian" become the SOLE THEOLOGIAN of an entire Christian movement? How is it that a man "may use words loosely" but still be considered THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH SPEAKING AS GOD'S ORACLE ON EARTH since 1945?
-

[Trapped]

First and foremost, the word. The word is pure milk. It is also bread. It is also solid food.

Witness Lee's footnotes and commentaries can be helpful and enlightening, but they should not be considered the substantial "meat" over the insubstantial "milk" of the word. This is an error.

However, at this point I personally cannot discount WL's footnotes and comments entirely. He did get some things correct, and there is some light there. In one meeting we had a new one ask about WL and the use of his materials in the LCs. Another new one who had more experience in life answered according to his own experience which was that he treated WN/WL's books as meat and bones (metaphorically, and in no relation to the "meat" I used earlier in this post). Whatever he received helpful he treated as meat and took in, and the rest that didn't help him or he didn't quite agree with, he simply discarded as bones, not something he should swallow, and moved on.

Similarly, he treated many other Bible commentaries in the same way, and was thus able to receive much more encouragement and light than if he had restricted himself to just the exposition of one man.

Witness Lee especially, his style of expounding does very little for me personally. It is very hard for me to relate to it, but that does not mean that I am lacking somehow or unwilling or in darkness or whatever. I have always mostly hit my head against it my whole life, no matter how much I read or tried.

For example, I've been struggling hard with forgiving some saints recently who really gutted me and then lied to me, and then continued to do so knowing what they were doing and not caring ONE BIT how they were affecting me. From WL I would get, "The root of our unwillingness to forgive others lies in our dispositional anger. Every man has a disposition that makes it easy for him to be offended, especially by his wife. The reason there are so many separations and divorces is that the women complain and that the men find it difficult to forgive. I advise the sisters not to complain and the brothers not to be offended." "Seventy times seven means that we must forgive others an unlimited number of times."

Well, that's nice, Witness. Thanks for your inspired advice not to be offended. I'm still struggling.

Then I was listening to Christian radio today......non-WL inspired songs! Tenth Avenue North's song "Losing" came on and nailed it. Spoke right to me. Said exactly what I was feeling, exactly how worn out my heart was by their months upon months of disregard, exactly the despair that I was the one losing and I was wrestling so hard with being in that position when I never thought these saints would be the ones to put me there. It didn't blame my disposition, it didn't tell me "I must" do something. It met me right where I was, on the floor really grasping to forgive these ones.

"I can't believe what she said
I can't believe what he did
Oh, don't they know it's wrong
Don't they know it's wrong

Maybe there's something I missed
How could they treat me like this?
It's wearing out my heart
The way they disregard

This is love or this is hate
We all have the choice to make

Oh, Father won't you forgive them
They don't know what they've been doing
Oh, Father give me grace to forgive them
'Cause I feel like the one losing

Well it's only the dead that can live
But still I wrestle with this
To lose the pain that's mine
Seventy times seven times
'Cause Lord it doesn't feel right
For me to turn a blind eye
Though I guess it's not that much
When I think of what You've done"

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

First and foremost, the word. The word is pure milk. It is also bread. It is also solid food.

Witness Lee's footnotes and commentaries can be helpful and enlightening, but they should not be considered the substantial "meat" over the insubstantial "milk" of the word. This is an error.

However, at this point I personally cannot discount WL's footnotes and comments entirely. He did get some things correct, and there is some light there. In one meeting we had a new one ask about WL and the use of his materials in the LCs. Another new one who had more experience in life answered according to his own experience which was that he treated WN/WL's books as meat and bones (metaphorically, and in no relation to the "meat" I used earlier in this post). Whatever he received helpful he treated as meat and took in, and the rest that didn't help him or he didn't quite agree with, he simply discarded as bones, not something he should swallow, and moved on.

Similarly, he treated many other Bible commentaries in the same way, and was thus able to receive much more encouragement and light than if he had restricted himself to just the exposition of one man.

This nails it I think. I like not treating any man's comments as the "meat & bones" but rather the Bible itself! (and, as stated, WL certainly did have some light, to which we are thankful)

And now (after partaking of the pure milk of the word):

. . . thanks be to God . . . you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed Romans 6:17

It is God who places members in the body as HE sees fit - and we need ALL members (whatever groups they have been committed to).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Here's the part you left out (intentionally or not):
So although theosis depicts the reality of a stage in salvation, it is a metaphor in that believers are only adopted as gods by grace. Furthermore, it is through this adoption that believers are literally transformed into the image of Christ.

The way you are underlining it is wrong (there is no comma between "only adopted as gods" and "by grace"), so you get the wrong understanding. Note that he does talk about theosis as a reality and a literal transformation.

It helps to read the whole paragraph to get the proper sense of what he is saying:

In distinction to the Son who is God by nature (together with the Father and the Spirit), believers are adopted and become gods by grace. - Blackwell is contrasting being God by nature (being part of the Trinity, with the Father and the Spirit), with becoming God/gods by grace.


Believers are active participants in the process of salvation, but they only receive salvation through grace. - we cannot become God by our own effort.

Because they are gods by grace, as opposed to nature, they cannot create salvation themselves. - saying the same thing.

The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God. - in other words, we are different to Christ who is a member of the Trinity and incarnated.


In other words, believers do not become a member of the Trinity—that is, they do not become God by nature. - here Blackwell states clearly what he means by "become God by nature". It is about being a member of the Trinity.


So although theosis depicts the reality of a stage in salvation, it is a metaphor in that believers are only adopted as gods by grace.

The metaphor here refers to "adopted... by grace". There is no comma there, so the metaphor is not, as you claim, the part which says "only adopted as gods".

That it is the "adopted.. by grace" which is the metaphor is confirmed by the next sentence where he talks about a literal transformation through the adoption:

Furthermore, it is through this adoption that believers are literally transformed into the image of Christ.

In summary, where Blackwell says that we become gods by grace and not by nature (not by being part of the Trinity of our own efforts or in ourselves), is saying the same thing as Lee does when he says "becoming God but not part of the God-head".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Also, note how Blackwell ALWAYS uses a small "g" when taking about believers being "god". Conversely, it should be noticed how Witness Lee always used a capital "G" when talking about believers being "God". This is the difference between an educated, trained and biblically precise theologian, and a man like Witness Lee who thought that God has somehow granted him special privileges to just makeup stuff out of the blue. Even his super-mentor, Watchman Nee, never taught anything like Lee did in this matter.
-

If you think the use of capitalization is the difference between a theologian and a non-theologian then you have a lot to learn.

A listing of many quotes by church fathers and others shows that some use the capital G and others use small g. I think CS Lewis uses capital G as well. Here is the wiki link, we may count how many use G and how many use g. Either are used.

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

I find it is typical to say "become God" and to say "becoming gods" (presumably because there is only one God). "gods" should not be capitalized because there is only one God. So there is no fixed rule about the capitalization. God or god does not matter, as long as we understand "become God" does not mean become part of the Trinity/Godhead. Witness Lee clarifies the meaning "but not in the Godhead", so it is just as orthodox as Athanasius or CS Lewis.

It is factually wrong to say Lee never uses small g:

we, who are the children of God, are men becoming gods. The children of God are gods. ~ The Issue of Christ Being Glorified by the Father with the Divine Glory

To help avoid confusion, Lee introduced the term God-man. This avoids confusion over use of the term and we don't have to worry about capitalization of g or G. In this respect, Lee a non-theologian, thought of something that Blackwell didn't, which shows innovation and that could have earned him an academic publication.

[Evangelical]

Let's take a more complete look at Blackwell's introductory paragraph:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God. Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical—believers don’t literally become God (as a member of the Trinity). With this in mind, why even use the language becoming gods if it sounds so heretical? If believers don’t become God, what do they become?

I will break it down line by line and then explain other sentences about the metaphor:

Describing salvation as theosis always means that humans are set in distinction to the one who is truly God.

- in other words, there is a difference between creatures becoming God and God who is God.

Therefore, Christian deification is always metaphorical—believers don’t literally become God (as a member of the Trinity).

- what is metaphorical is that Christians become God as a member of the Trinity. Becoming God (by grace) however is not metaphorical. If it were, then everything Blackwell wrote about becoming gods by grace would not be true. And what Athanasius wrote "become God" would not be true either. Blackwell is not denying that theosis is true, he is setting boundaries between orthodoxy and heresy.


With this in mind, why even use the language becoming gods if it sounds so heretical?


- UntoHim before made some silly point about capitalization before. Here Blackwell is saying "becoming gods" sounds heretical. So if "becoming gods" and "becoming God" both sound heretical, the "little g and big G rule" doesn't really matter does it? The early church fathers and CS Lewis don't care about this silly rule either.


If believers don’t become God, what do they become?

- Here Blackwell seems to be using the term God to refer to the Trinity. "believes don't become God" must mean we don't become part of the Trinity, as Blackwell already made that point earlier.


Thus, we look so much like God that we might (metaphorically) be called gods.

- Lee also says this in "The Organic Union in God's Relationship with Man". He mentions how we look like God just as a photograph of a person looks like that person.

I personally don't like Blackwell's use of the term "be called gods" (little g) because it implies we are gods in ourselves (like ten thousand god's of Egypt). It is better to say "be called God" because then it is clear we are saying we look like the one true God.


This metaphor illustrates theosis: just as the iron does not cease to be iron, humans do not cease to be humans. - Lee does not believe humans cease to be humans, either. Even "more fully human" is a phrase I have heard before in the recovery.


Similarily, in the process of deification believers are united to God and become like him, experiencing his life and holiness. - Lee already says something like this but calls it the "organic union".

I find nothing in Blackwell's article that contradicts Lee. Although they both use terms slightly differently they both agree that to become God is not to become part of the Trinity or an object of worship. Given that is the case, I don't know why people have an issue with what Lee teaches and not the early church fathers, or CS Lewis and many others.

[Kevin]

Why so enamored with theosis? Seriously, why could this be considered as the highest gospel?
God’s eternal economy
Is to make man the same as He is
In life and nature,
But not in the Godhead
And to make Himself one with man
And man one with Him
Thus to be enlarged and expanded in His expression
That all His divine, that all His divine
Attributes may be expressed in human virtues.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I find nothing in Blackwell's article that contradicts Lee. Although they both use terms slightly differently they both agree that to become God is not to become part of the Trinity or an object of worship. Given that is the case, I don't know why people have an issue with what Lee teaches and not the early church fathers, or CS Lewis and many others.

Mr E., the more you try to convince us that Lee's teachings are saying the same thing as Blackwell's, the deeper hole you dig for yourself. (and you've got a long ways to go, my friend, to get to the bottom of the bottomless pit of Lee's unbiblical teachings) Blackwell is NOT using "but not in the Godhead" as a proviso to mitigate or soften an unbiblical or heretical statement, such as "We are becoming God in life and nature". Blackwell doesn't have to use any provisos, caveats or stipulations because he doesn't make any unbiblical or heretical statements to begin with.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In this respect, Lee a "non-theologian", thought of something that Blackwell didn't, which shows innovation and that could have earned him an academic publication.

So if Lee was a non-theologian (wow, big revelation there, bro!) then why are you comparing and contrasting his teachings with a genuine, bonafide theologian like Blackwell? It begs the question...why do you believe that Witness Lee is The One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age? Why do you believe that Lee was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle?
-