Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Drake, did you intentionally change WL's "become God" to "becoming one with God"? Why the change?

good catch.

"Becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" is more accurate and better.

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

good catch. "Becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" is more accurate and better.

Clever answer. I almost convinced myself you typed your true belief unintentionally. Just my wishful thinking perhaps.

Anyway, I thank God that when I tried to search what is the exact wordings of WL, the following link popped up and now I know what we believed Athanasius wrote ("become God") could just be mistranslation.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pr...on/are-we-gods

Where the English translation says, quoting St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God,” the official Latin text reads, Ipse siquidem homo factus est, ut nos dii efficeremur. Literal translation: “For the Son of God became man so that we might be made gods.” The Latin term dii translated “God” in the English translation of the Catechism is nominative plural and is not capitalized. Unfortunately, the English translation of the official Latin text gets it wrong. “God” should be “gods.”

Part of the problem here may well go back to the original Greek of St. Athanasius from which the Catechism quotes. The literal translation of the text from St. Athanasius that the Catechism quotes is, “For he was made man in order that we might be deified.” The Greek verb theopoiethomen is where the problem lies. This is a compound of two Greek words that mean god and to make. So one could see how a translator could translate it as “might be made God.”

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

.... but because Brother Lee said it, then no matter how many qualifiers he adds (“but not in the Godhead”) many in this forum will say it must be wrong even if the Bible clearly reveals it!

Maybe that's because Witness Lee is infamous for teaching things that are not clearly revealed in the bible. But this doesn't stop many of his followers extolling him as the only person who spoke as God's oracle on earth. The simple truth is that to Local Churchers, if Lee taught something it was to be considered "recovered truth" or a "high peak truth", even if it was not clearly revealed in the Bible. Oh, they will use the bible...twist and contort it beyond recognition...until it seems to say what Lee is saying. Lee did this while he was alive, and now his followers do this for him in absentia.

Look, this matter of "theosis" or "divinization" is involving heavy-duty, deep theology. Witness Lee, and those "trained" by him, have no business telling us what is and what is not orthodox, biblically sound teaching in this matter. Lee spent his career telling anybody who would listen that professional theologians are all washed up....he called their seminaries "cemeteries". He called them "blind, mooing cows". (but his followers have instituted a number of faux seminaries...but that's ok because when they do it they call them "trainings")

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.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ben Blackwell

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)

That walks a fine line. When the word "adoption" is used, it conjures up bringing someone into your family who does not actually share your life, which is an extremely shallow view of what Christ did as the One Grain falling into the ground to bring forth many grains.

But then at the end of the above quote, he says, "The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God. That is a very interesting way to put it! It seems to me to be an accurate way of saying this - we did not create this life and in no way are we responsible for giving it . . . only receiving it.

But we are a new creation in Christ - a wholly new critter that has never been in the universe before (as a folksy brother I know likes to say). The old nature in Adam has been done away with and we've been given this new nature, a new man created in His image. "Eye has not seen!"

So this is a good discussion and I think I'm a little clearer. I think we can say that we are destined by God as something new, remarkable, astounding and wonderful --- we even receive His glory! But of the Godhead we do not become.

Is it good enough then to just leave it at that and not try to figure out the proverbial number of angels dancing on a pinhead? (after all - knowledge is failing big time)

[least]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But we are a new creation in Christ - a wholly new critter that has never been in the universe before (as a folksy brother I know likes to say). The old nature in Adam has been done away with and we've been given this new nature, a new man created in His image. "Eye has not seen!"

bingo!

NEW CREATION.

-
knowledge fails, love endures. God is love.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That walks a fine line. When the word "adoption" is used, it conjures up bringing someone into your family who does not actually share your life, which is an extremely shallow view of what Christ did as the One Grain falling into the ground to bring forth many grains.

But then at the end of the above quote, he says, "The life they experience is not their own; they are sharing the life of God. That is a very interesting way to put it! It seems to me to be an accurate way of saying this - we did not create this life and in no way are we responsible for giving it . . . only receiving it.

But we are a new creation in Christ - a wholly new critter that has never been in the universe before (as a folksy brother I know likes to say). The old nature in Adam has been done away with and we've been given this new nature, a new man created in His image. "Eye has not seen!"

So this is a good discussion and I think I'm a little clearer. I think we can say that we are destined by God as something new, remarkable, astounding and wonderful --- we even receive His glory! But of the Godhead we do not become.

Is it good enough then to just leave it at that and not try to figure out the proverbial number of angels dancing on a pinhead? (after all - knowledge is failing big time)

You have read this as I have that is saying we become sons of God or gods by faith and His Spirit not that we are ever going to be incarnated like Christ having both natures in our very being.

Lee never said we become god apart from Christ.

[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?
-