Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are two main ideas found in the early church:
1. Jesus died so that man can become God
2. Even if man did not sin, Jesus still would have died for the purpose of making men God.

The greatest theologian in church history was the apostle Paul.

Would he not have included this teaching under the anointing Spirit if it were true?

[Nell]

Hey, E—

Are you God? Or, are you god? If not, why not? What will it take to put you over the line? When will you become g/God? How will it happen? Will you have to die first?

We need details. I can’t find anything in the Bible that explains how Evangelical is going to become g/God. There’s nothing about ANYONE who actually became g/God. Or is that new?

.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hey, E—
Are you God? Or, are you god? If not, why not? What will it take to put you over the line? When will you become g/God? How will it happen? Will you have to die first?
We need details. I can’t find anything in the Bible that explains how Evangelical is going to become g/God. There’s nothing about ANYONE who actually became g/God. Or is that new?

Paul wrote we don't really know what we shall become, there is still some mystery about it.

We get new glorified bodies like Jesus's, that are immortal. That's a "god" by anyone's definition (especially Hollywood's). To me it means partaking of God's divine nature. Anyway I see these questions as irrelevant details to the purpose of salvation just as calvinism vs arminism is irrelevant to salvation.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul wrote we don't really know what we shall become, there is still some mystery about it.

We get new glorified bodies like Jesus's, that are immortal. That's a "god" by anyone's definition (especially Hollywood's). To me it means partaking of God's divine nature. Anyway I see these questions as irrelevant details to the purpose of salvation just as calvinism vs arminism is irrelevant to salvation.

But, are you God? Have you “become”? Yes or no? Not hard questions.

Anyone’s definition? Do you speak for everyone? Even Hollywood!!?? Wow! You might be god.

So...details are irrelevant when you don’t have any. Got it. To become something... anything ... you need to ...know how...? Otherwise, what you’re preaching is empty words. “Poof!” You’re god! Or, “Poof! You’re a heretic!”


.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

But, are you God? Have you “become”? Yes or no? Not hard questions.
Anyone’s definition? Do you speak for everyone? Even Hollywood!!?? Wow! You might be god.
So...details are irrelevant when you don’t have any. Got it. To become something... anything ... you need to ...know how...? Otherwise, what you’re preaching is empty words. “Poof!” You’re god! Or, “Poof! You’re a heretic!”

Scripture defines a god as one who is immortal in Psalm 82:6-7. It also describes a god as one who is a son of the most high.

Why do people take issue with men calling themselves god, if they call themselves sons of God? Does not the warning that they shall "die like men" apply both to "god" as it does to "children of God" in Psalm 82:6-7?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Scripture defines a god as one who is immortal in Psalm 82:6-7. It also describes a god as one who is a son of the most high.

Why do people take issue with men calling themselves god, if they call themselves sons of God? Does not the warning that they shall "die like men" apply both to "god" as it does to "children of God" in Psalm 82:6-7?

So I guess that's a "no." You, Evangelical, have not become "a god." And, Scripture doesn't define a god as one who is immortal in Psalm 82:6-7. The word “immortal” does not appear in the entire chapter of Psalm 82. Oops!

Psalm 82 King James Version (KJV)
82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

But it does beg the question: If you won't be a god until after you die, how can you 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82:3-4 refers to "gods" who are living and acting as a judge or someone with some authority over others.

Consider this opinion:
“The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.” https://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

This opinion actually fits the context of Psalm 82 as an appointed judge who represents God in this world. They are not immortal but absolutely mortal.

[Evangelical]

Jews have a different interpretation - that it refers to angels in God's court and not human judges at all. Anyhow.

The opinions of early church fathers were quite different. They say that "sons of the most high" referred to Christians, the church. These men lived about the same time the New Testament was written or soon after. They were not only important theologians in Christian orthodoxy but revered as Saints in early church councils. They are credited for defending the Christian faith against heresies (Arianism etc). In regards to the Trinity and the canon of scripture which we take for granted today, they were regarded as representing the majority of orthodox Christian opinion at the time.

Even though gotquestions is often a reliable resource, I believe the journal article by the baptist Professor Carl Mosser carries more weight. It shows that the more formal doctrine of theosis in the EOC comes from what was a common interpretation of Psalm 82 at the time, rather than some vain imagination or heresy of the early fathers.

So when Witness Lee writes about the purpose of salvation being to "become god" he is not too far off the mark, his view is in alignment with the "earliest extant interpretations of Psalm 82".

For this reason I believe Psalm 82:6-7 is about immortality of the believers, and this is a more accurate interpretation because we are interpreting it as an ancient Christian might have.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The greatest theologian in church history was the apostle Paul. Would he not have included this teaching under the anointing Spirit if it were true?

The same argument could be applied to the Trinity couldn't it? It is significant that the same people who confirmed the doctrine of the Trinity also believed in theosis. Very hard to argue against, without weakening our belief in the orthodoxy of the Trinity. There is actually a good chance Athanasius would have declared you to be a heretic if you don't believe in it.

Those who believed in the full divinity of Christ in opposition to the Arian heresy such as Athanasius, also believed in the purpose of God to "make men God". Basil the Great and Gregory also and other early church people of note.

The reason I believe is, that if we believe in the full divinity of Christ, and if we believe in the sonship Paul talks about through Christ, then the sons of God (believers) should also possess the divinity. Yet it seems that only evangelicals believe that we become sons of God yet don't actually look like sons of God. "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely" they say. Their presentation of salvation is to escape a scary place called hell rather than to obtain an inheritance of being conformed to Christ's image. First they have to make people afraid of hell, and then preach the gospel so they are drawn to it through fear.

In Romans 8:29 it is clear that being conformed to Christ's image is the goal of salvation. Now since Christ is God, we may say that the goal of salvation is to be conformed to the image of God.

The other clear link is 2 Peter 1:3–4 as well.

It seems that Paul also implies it in Ephesians 1 when he talks about sonship. I think it is implied in Ephesians 1 where Paul teaches us about sonship with an inheritance. Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Paul also talks about being filled with the fullness of God in Ephesians 3:19.

I think if we look hard enough and keep an open mind we can see that the beliefs of the early church fathers are not in contradiction with the apostles. If we think they are, then it raises doubts about the orthodoxy of the Trinity doctrine as well and even the Creeds such as the Athanasius creed (if we value them, many churches do).

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason I believe is, that if we believe in the full divinity of Christ, and if we believe in the sonship Paul talks about through Christ, then the sons of God (believers) should also possess the divinity.

Pretty good Mr E. This is a biblical understanding/presentation. So why go beyond this? Why jump from "possess the divinity" (a biblical concept backed by "partakers of the divine nature" as taught in 2 Peter 1:4) to "becoming the divinity" as taught by Witness Lee? There is always an abject danger in going beyond what is written. In the case of the Local Church, it issued in the craziness of a bunch of gullible young Christians running around proclaiming "Hallelujah, I'm a baby God!" Of course it got even worse (and who could think that was even possible?) when those same people ran around shouting "Praise the Lord, I'm a Witness Lee tape recorder!"

Yet it seems that only evangelicals believe that we become sons of God yet don't actually look like sons of God. "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely" they say....
Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Mr E. you are clueless on what is taught in the majority of evangelical/orthodox churches. I know this because most of your posts show that your knowledge/understanding comes from Google, and not from your personal study and observation. What evangelical/orthodox Christians teach that "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely"? This kind of nonsense comes straight from the mouth of Witness Lee, who was decidedly ignorant of what is actually taught and believed in mainstream Christianity. Lee was too busy calling his brothers and sisters in Christ "Christless", "mooing cows" and "daughters of the great whore" to take a few minutes and actually know for a fact what is taught and believed.

The bottom line question/contention has been brought forth by Nell and some others. "SHOW ME! SHOW ME YOU'RE BECOMING GOD BY YOUR WORDS AND ACTIONS." If this kind of teaching is biblical and healthy, surely the main purveyor of it, after 60-70 years, should have become something very close to becoming "God in life and nature". So let's put the life and times of Witness Lee to the eyes, ears and nose test, shall we? On second thought, I don't have the time right now to give even a partial list of all the evidence. Actually, many of the threads and posts on this forum cover this evidence in vivid detail. If Witness Lee's teaching was biblical we wouldn't be here in this forum today...we would all be too busy expressing the life and nature that we had become, now wouldn't we?
-

[awareness]

Okay. Amendment to my post #299 : Can we name one?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay. Amendment to my post #299 : Can we name one?

I'll bite.

The no brainer answer is Jesus.... He is the Firstborn among many brethren.

Yet, I am sure you mean who besides Him. Clearly, every regenerated born again believer joined to the Lord is one S/spirit.... therefore, theosis, union with God, has transpired in every spirit regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'll bite.

The no brainer answer is Jesus.... He is the Firstborn among many brethren.

Yet, I am sure you mean who besides Him. Clearly, every regenerated born again believer joined to the Lord is one S/spirit.... therefore, theosis, union with God, has transpired in every spirit regenerated by the Spirit of God.

Drake

Of course Jesus. But I like your take on theosis. Essentially, we don't do a thing. It's vouchsafed grace. And we're all little gods even if we don't know a thing about theosis. The fruit will speak for it.

Hey on a side note. I just got an email from Hank. Because I'm such a great supporter, he says, he offered me a copy of a new book :

“This is a new challenge from a different breed of critics who are using their instant credibility and insider’s knowledge of theology, the Bible, church history, even apologetics, to debunk the faith they once believed and promoted. They have taken aim at the foundations of Christianity, including God, the Scriptures, miracles and the supernatural, and Christianity’s perceived inherent prohibition on free inquiry.”
—from Why People Stop Believing,
by Paul Chamberlain

I took his offer, but stopped at : "Your Donation Amount ( $ )"

I've never donated, and have shown no support for CRI ever, except for being on his email list.

Why do people stop believing? Maybe because Christianity has become about money, like Hank wants in this email.

Methinks our brother Hank is in need of theosis. Maybe he received the Spirit, but it looks like he's not living by it.

And that puts the EO on the spot. Just how does joining the EO deify new members? It's not likely to be accomplish there by calling on the Lord and pray-reading. They must have more tried and true methods.

Do we have any members out here that left the LC and joined the Eastern Orthodox? who might be able to give us an inside take?

[Sons to Glory!]

So I think what Evangelical said about us being sons of God bares some further looking into. Are we sons? Sure, as too many scriptures say this.

How about God's glory (a question I believe no one has addressed)? Does He give us that? A king gives his children his glory. Colossians 1:27 says, "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Christ is in us, as too many verses state. For instance: "When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me."

If you go to Romans 8 you see that the Triune God is in us (vs 10-11), Father, Son & Spirit.

Ephesians tells us we are the temple, a dwelling place of God in Spirit. Do these verses say we become God? Not exactly. But elsewhere in Ephesians it talks about the riches of His inheritance in the saints.

Why is He our Father? Because He loves us and wants us as His family.

Again, regarding the glory question, John 17 has Jesus praying that "the glory you have given Me, I have given them." And then all the talk about "You in Me and I in them, that they may be one in Us."

"As He is so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) Another thing Evangelical said had to do with Jesus being the prototype (the 2nd man & Last Adam). As a Man, He was nothing short of all we were supposed to be, right? He said, "He that has seen Me has seen the Father." Jesus came to introduce the world to the Father. Why the word "Father?" He wants many sons brought to glory!

So where do you draw the line considering these things?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course Jesus. But I like your take on theosis. Essentially, we don't do a thing. It's vouchsafed grace. And we're all little gods even if we don't know a thing about theosis. The fruit will speak for it.

Hey on a side note. I just got an email from Hank. Because I'm such a great supporter, he says, he offered me a copy of a new book :

“This is a new challenge from a different breed of critics who are using their instant credibility and insider’s knowledge of theology, the Bible, church history, even apologetics, to debunk the faith they once believed and promoted. They have taken aim at the foundations of Christianity, including God, the Scriptures, miracles and the supernatural, and Christianity’s perceived inherent prohibition on free inquiry.”
—from Why People Stop Believing,
by Paul Chamberlain

I took his offer, but stopped at : "Your Donation Amount ( $ )"

I've never donated, and have shown no support for CRI ever, except for being on his email list.

Why do people stop believing? Maybe because Christianity has become about money, like Hank wants in this email.

Methinks our brother Hank is in need of theosis. Maybe he received the Spirit, but it looks like he's not living by it.

And that puts the EO on the spot. Just how does joining the EO deify new members? It's not likely to be accomplish there by calling on the Lord and pray-reading. They must have more tried and true methods.

Do we have any members out here that left the LC and joined the Eastern Orthodox? who might be able to give us an inside take?

The EO probably acquires divinity by praying to Saint Athanasius, John Piper seems to have found this secret as well when he prayed:

Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father. And thank you, Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

It's the Holy Trinity of divinity - Athanasius, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I would prefer calling on the name of the Lord than praying to Athanasius.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Pretty good Mr E. This is a biblical understanding/presentation. So why go beyond this? Why jump from "possess the divinity" (a biblical concept backed by "partakers of the divine nature" as taught in 2 Peter 1:4) to "becoming the divinity" as taught by Witness Lee? There is always an abject danger in going beyond what is written. In the case of the Local Church, it issued in the craziness of a bunch of gullible young Christians running around proclaiming "Hallelujah, I'm a baby God!" Of course it got even worse (and who could think that was even possible?) when those same people ran around shouting "Praise the Lord, I'm a Witness Lee tape recorder!"

I am not sure how Lee went "beyond this", I never got the sense that he did.

Lee defines "becoming divine" as receiving another life through regeneration, which is added to our natural life. That sounds like partaking of the divine nature to me.

Lee no where teaches that the human essence becomes divine which would be heresy. Humanity stays humanity, and divinity stays divinity.
As long as human atom particles stay human and God particles (pun intended) stay God, there is no heresy.

And even though Lee believed in man becoming God, unlike John Piper, I don't know that Lee ever prayed to Saint Athanasius to thank him for it.

Here is an ultimate hypocrisy:

Evangelicals love Athanasius and CS Lewis too much to call them absolute heretics about "man becoming God" and Athanasius never explained himself fully by what he meant by that. Yet they will criticize Lee for every little suggestion that "man becomes God" when there are pages of material written to clarify the intended meaning that removes any doubt about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems that Paul also implies it in Ephesians 1 when he talks about sonship. I think it is implied in Ephesians 1 where Paul teaches us about sonship with an inheritance. Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Evan, I really wish you take some time to study Paul's use of the Greek word "huiothesia." W. Lee has long used this one truth to condemn all Christians and to exalt his own ministry. We have discussed this repeatedly on the forum, but unfortunately you are so imbibed with Lee-isms that you can no longer hear.

This word huiothesia is unique to Paul, and it emphasizes the legal rights of sons as heirs to our Heavenly Father. Sorry if this is too complicated for you, since you refuse to explore the depths of the riches here. (Rom 11.33-36) Without the Spirit of God inspiring the apostle Paul to "adopt" (pun intended) this unique word, our understanding of the new birth at our regeneration would be extremely limited.

Instead you prefer to run around proclaiming yourself a "baby god," all the while condemning the rest of the body of Christ for reducing their status to the "mere signing of a legal adoption agreement" and worse. Do you really think that your arrogant attitude towards the truths of scripture and the condemnation of all other children of God will help you grow to become a full-grown son, qualifying as a legal heir to all God's wealth?

The following quotation from the above link manifests some of the riches of Christ in Paul's ministry. (Yet completely missed by W. Lee.)

“Adoption” clearly indicates that a Christian is a member of God’s family. In the Roman culture, the adopted son or daughter had four major changes: a change of family, a change of name, a change of home, and a change of responsibilities. Most importantly, by using the word “adoption,” God emphasizes that salvation is permanent for the Christian, which is why it appears only in the Church Epistles. Some versions translate huiothesia as “sonship,” but we believe that is not as good as “adoption.” While it is true that someone adopted into the family attains sonship (the status of a son), “adoption” is more accurate to the Greek meaning of the word, and it correctly expresses the fact that the adopted child is permanently placed in the family.

Birth seems so much more desirable than adoption that it is fair to ask why God would even use “adoption.” The answer is that the Romans recognized that when a baby was born, “you got what you got,” whether you liked it or not. This would include the sex of the child, birthmarks, etc. Thus, according to Roman law, a naturally born baby could be disowned from the family. However, people adopting a child knew exactly what they were getting, and no one adopted a child unless that specific child was wanted as a family member, so according to law an adopted child could not be disowned. He or she was permanently added to the family. Many early believers were Roman citizens, and using the word “adoption” was one of God’s ways to let the Church know that He chose the children brought into His family, and they could not be taken from it. The Roman historian William M. Ramsay writes:

“The Roman-Syrian Law-Book…where a formerly prevalent Greek law had persisted under the Roman Empire—well illustrates this passage of the Epistle. It actually lays down the principle that a man can never put away an adopted son, and that he cannot put away a real son without good ground. It is remarkable that the adopted son should have a stronger position than the son by birth, yet it was so.”

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan, I really wish you take some time to study Paul's use of the Greek word "huiothesia." W. Lee has long used this one truth to condemn all Christians and to exalt his own ministry. We have discussed this repeatedly on the forum, but unfortunately you are so imbibed with Lee-isms that you can no longer hear.

This word huiothesia is unique to Paul, and it emphasizes the legal rights of sons as heirs to our Heavenly Father. Sorry if this is too complicated for you, since you refuse to explore the depths of the riches here. (Rom 11.33-36) Without the Spirit of God inspiring the apostle Paul to "adopt" (pun intended) this unique word, our understanding of the new birth at our regeneration would be extremely limited.

Instead you prefer to run around proclaiming yourself a "baby god," all the while condemning the rest of the body of Christ for reducing their status to the "mere signing of a legal adoption agreement" and worse. Do you really think that your arrogant attitude towards the truths of scripture and the condemnation of all other children of God will help you grow to become a full-grown son, qualifying as a legal heir to all God's wealth?

The following quotation from the above link manifests some of the riches of Christ in Paul's ministry. (Yet completely missed by W. Lee.)

The simple reason why the "Roman law" interpretation is wrong (if taken as fact), is that we are not adopted under Roman law and neither has God ever been bound by Roman law. Gentiles especially.

This misunderstanding I believe is because people confuse a fact with the Roman adoption law analogy Paul was making.

The fact is that we are born of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23).

This misunderstanding is shown in the article I posted previously which says:

"Adoption is a legal act of God on our behalf"

So God, the one who makes the law, had to "do a legal act", doesn't really make sense considering that God is the ultimate authority, not someone bound by Roman adoption law.

Secondly, "adoption.. on our behalf" doesn't make much sense either, because it implies that we had to adopt ourselves?

The blessings of adoption are correct, but people have mistakenly taken the analogy of adoption and misapplied it as fact, suggesting, as that article above does, that God "had to do some legal things on our behalf". God was not doing anything legal - the reality is that believers are reborn (born again) of incorruptable seed by the Holy Spirit, making them sons of God in spiritual reality not merely as an agreement under law.