Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Sons to Glory!]

Upon reading this (with a fresh, morning mind), I see one thing missing. One little thing. Oh what could it be - SCRIPTURE!

When asked to present a concise statement of what we believe, I think it behooves us to give that answer, from scripture, and do it in such a way as to not muddy it in a whole bunch of "they said" speak. Short. Living. To the point. (I heard that somewhere before . . .)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Upon reading this (with a fresh, morning mind), I see one thing missing. One little thing. Oh what could it be - SCRIPTURE!

When asked to present a concise statement of what we believe, I think it behooves us to give that answer, from scripture, and do it in such a way as to not muddy it in a whole bunch of "they said" speak. Short. Living. To the point. (I heard that somewhere before . . .)

You have asked for Scripture before. In my post #294 I gave Scripture and you were the only one to respond to that in a neutral way. I have been using Scripture more than anyone, and there is even more Scripture in the links from Piper and Blackwell that I have referenced. Everything comes back to the early church's understanding of Psalm 82 and when Jesus said "ye are gods".

I am not going to continue summarizing my posts if people are lazy. Everyone is capable of doing their own research. When you write many posts and do in-depth research as I have, continuing to ask for summaries and scripture is bordering on rudeness.

It can easily be seen that most people's posts here are not using Scripture but opinions.

For example, UntoHim warned about listening to Anthanasius and quoted Galatians 1:8, but all of the theologians like Piper and Blackwell would be guilty of that - Piper even thanked Anthanasius in a way which is more prayer-like than not.

Galatians 1:8 mentions gospels contrary to that which Paul preached. So far, my research into the early church beliefs has found that the early church gospel included theosis. And that is why the defenders of the Trinity like Athanasius believed in it.
So perhaps it is the modern day gospel with the goal of only getting to Heaven which is the "other gospel" contrary to Paul's.

[Sons to Glory!]

Yeah, yer right . . . sorta. It was just all this discussion - back and forth and forth and back - it all kinda got lost in the sauce for me and I was hoping to get it distilled down into something, sorta, kinda, basically ineligible.

What I'm realizing these days is - if it ain't simple to grasp, it probably aint the Lord.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yeah, yer right . . . sorta. It was just all this discussion - back and forth and forth and back - it all kinda got lost in the sauce for me and I was hoping to get it distilled down into something, sorta, kinda, basically ineligible.

What I'm realizing these days is - if it ain't simple to grasp, it probably aint the Lord.

Fair enough.

The simplest passages I can think of are these ones:

2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Romans 8:29 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.

2 Peter 1:4 shows that it is God's will for us to participate in the divine nature.

Romans 8:29 shows the goal of salvation to be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother.

2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:29 is basically theosis. The gospel is about bringing many sons to glory.

John 3:16 has been interpreted by many that salvation is to not perish (in hell) and live forever (in heaven).

In contrast, the early church seems to have seen salvation in light of 2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:28. The EOC seems to have retained this early church tradition of keeping theosis as the focus. If that is what the early church believed, then the apostle Paul must have contained theosis as part of his gospel such as - Hebrews 2 and Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Fair enough.

The simplest passages I can think of are these ones:

2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Romans 8:29 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.

2 Peter 1:4 shows that it is God's will for us to participate in the divine nature.

Romans 8:29 shows the goal of salvation to be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother.

2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:29 is basically theosis. The gospel is about bringing many sons to glory.

John 3:16 has been interpreted by many that salvation is to not perish (in hell) and live forever (in heaven).

In contrast, the early church seems to have seen salvation in light of 2 Peter 1:4 and Romans 8:28. The EOC seems to have retained this early church tradition of keeping theosis as the focus. If that is what the early church believed, then the apostle Paul must have contained theosis as part of his gospel such as - Hebrews 2 and Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

Then Lee's Recovery movement is superfluous. The EOC has had it since the beginning. Lee recovered nothing.

Your verse support is weak. Can you point me to where Jesus teaches theosis? Seems if it's such an important doctrine Jesus would have taught it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then Lee's Recovery movement is superfluous. The EOC has had it since the beginning. Lee recovered nothing.

Your verse support is weak. Can you point me to where Jesus teaches theosis? Seems if it's such an important doctrine Jesus would have taught it.

Some other verses that speak of this mystery would be in John 17, right? The Lord has much praying to the Father about our oneness with the Triune God and God's glory being given to believers.

Verse 21:"That they all may be one, even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us . . ."

Verse 22: "And the glory you have given Me I have given to them . . ."

One might also look to Romans 8 verses 9-11. Seems like lots of blending of God & man there (dare I say "mingling"?).

And as Paul says in Colossians 1:27 about this great mystery" "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

I still think the bottom-line is that this subject is (sorta like my dad would say - like trying to corner jello) a mystery. As is written, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those that love Him."

Yes, it probably is too far to say we become God, but then God is the ultimate giver! "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when He is revealed, we will be like Him; for we will see him just as He is." My my - what is this!!??

I think what He is doing is and will be an entirely new creation and critter (as a brother I know likes to say) - God's masterpiece!

[awareness]

Good response Sons. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Some other verses that speak of this mystery would be in John 17, right? Much praying about oneness with the Triune God and God's glory being given to believers, right?

Verse 21:"That they all may be one, even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us . . ."

Verse 22: "And the glory you have given Me I have given to them . . ."

Yes, when I asked if Jesus taught theosis John 17 was on my mind. But that doesn't seem to be theosis as Lee taught it. In fact it doesn't seem to be speaking of theosis at all.

Originally Posted by Sons

One might also look to Romans 8 verses 9-11. Seems like lots of blending of God & man there (dare I say "mingling"?).

If that's true then we're theosisized (sic) when we receive the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Sons

And as Paul says in Colossians 1:27 about this great mystery" "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

Christ in us is our deification.

Originally Posted by Sons

I still think the bottom-line is that this subject is (sorta like my dad would say - like trying to corner jello) a mystery.

But Lee gained his power by revealing mysteries. In fact, that's what the recovery was all about : Lee revealing mysteries, that have been hidden from all, until the great Lee came along. To bad we can't kiss his feet. Oh, are they still doing that ... in their spirits now?

Originally Posted by Sons

Yes, it probably is too far to say we become God ...

Ya think!

Originally Posted by Sons

, but God is the ultimate giver! "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is." My my - what is this!!??

Now that sounds like divine induced theosis. That happens "when he is revealed."

Originally Posted by Sons

I think what He is doing is and will be an entirely new creation and critter (as a brother I know likes to say) - God's masterpiece!

"The hope of glory."

[UntoHim]

Ok Mr E., I'm only going to do this one more time. Your posts are becoming very repetitive and decidedly unresponsive to the legitimate concerns and contentions of other posters. I will give you one more time to directly respond. One more time I will point out to you and the readers/lurkers that Witness Lee plainly and clearly taught that we "BECOME God in life and nature". Now, just like Witness Lee, you have failed to show how this teaching is scriptural, or how it can be accepted as falling within the bounds of orthodoxy. Again, you have not addressed the salient concerns regarding the word "Become". Please don't be like Witness Lee whose answer to these kind of questions and concerns was "because I said so", or "well, that guy over there taught something like this and you don't call him heretical!". That will not cut it here on this forum.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The simplest passages I can think of are these ones:

2 Peter 1:4 shows that it is God's will for us to participate in the divine nature.

To participate in the divine nature is NOT to BECOME God in life and nature.

Romans 8:29 shows the goal of salvation to be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother.

To be conformed to the image of Christ and share in God's family as Jesus's brother is NOT to BECOME God in life and nature

Hebrews 2 and Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

To not conform to the pattern of this world and be transformed by the renewing of your mind is NOT to BECOME God in life and nature.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The word become is not the issue it is the definition of "God in life and nature". If "God in life and nature" means the "economic Trinity" then it is orthodox, if it means the "essential Trinity" then it is heretical.

To alleviate any concerns, I will define the term "God in life and nature" as Lee used it - in Western theology, it means the "economic Trinity". In Eastern theology, it means "God's energies". If you can prove that Lee used it in any other way than this, then you have a point that it is heresy. But if not, you cannot say it is heresy.

Going with the Western terminology, "economic Trinity" refers to what God does. And the "“ontological Trinity” or "essential Trinity" refers to what God is.

Lee taught that we become God economically, but not ontologically.

For these reasons it falls under orthodoxy.

I did not exactly "fail to show that it is scriptural", I gave the scriptures that theologians like Blackwell say led to the doctrine of theosis, which confirms it is scriptural. A doctrine is not scriptural just because UntoHim or Evangelical thinks it is. One person's personal interpretation of Scripture does not define orthodoxy. It is confirmed by the earliest Christian sources from multiple accounts. It is like how the doctrine of the Trinity is Scriptural - there is no verse which defines it clearly for us as well as the Nicene Creed, but it is seen when comparing Scripture as a whole, and it raises all sorts of questions if people like Athanasius who defended the Trinity got it wrong about theosis.

UntoHim,

The above starts to address the main point of your earlier excellent question:

“Please tell us about the life and nature (of God) that we “become” that is different than the life and nature (of God) that we do “not become”.

Stated in accepted theological terms it serves as a solid basis for what I wanted to share sooner. That is, a believer in the Lord Jesus becomes God in life and nature, a bonified (John 1:12) son of God, one of “many brothers” in the genre of the Firstborn Son of God (Romans 8:29) ..... but never the Only-begotten Son of God (John 1:14).

The understanding of what we become pivots entirely on that distinction.

The scripture states clearly that we are genuine sons not just legally but in life.... yet according to and after the pattern of the Firstborn. So, what is the primary distinction between the Only-Begotten Son and Firstborn Son? It is primarily “creation”. The Firstborn is also a creature (Philippians 2:6-8) whereas the Only-Begotten is the Creator through whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16).

As pertains to us, the believers, we will always be creatures yet we also are in the same genre of possessing both divinity and humanity as our Firstborn Brother. In that sense, we are or becoming God in life and nature as He is.

I’ll pause here and ask for your acknowledgement of agreement or if you don’t agree I’ll ask an explanation of your differing understanding from what I have stated. Please provide scripture to substantiate your point of view.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

As pertains to us, the believers, we will always be creatures yet we also are in the same genre of possessing both divinity and humanity as our Firstborn Brother. In that sense, we are or becoming God in life and nature as He is.

I’ll pause here and ask for your acknowledgement of agreement or if you don’t agree I’ll ask an explanation of your differing understanding from what I have stated. Please provide scripture to substantiate your point of view.

The Bible does not say we are "becoming God." Lee said it, not based on scripture, but on the writings of certain "church fathers." [ N.B. Jesus said call no man "father." Matt. 23.9 ]

The writings of these so-called "church fathers" are in no way binding on us as the church today. If we accept Athanasius as authoritative, then we must also acknowledge Ignatius who gave us the bishopric hierarchy which gave authentication to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. These early post-apostolic writers and ministers were definitely used by the Lord in their day, but perhaps their only lasting legacy was the canonization of the New Testament. Only the Bible is definitive for the church today.

In the garden of Eden, the Serpent tempted first man Adam and Eve with the subtle deceit of "opening their eyes, and you shall be as God." (Gen 3.5) Today the oldest sect, the Eastern Orthodox, and a relatively new sect, the Mormon Latter Day Saints, both use this teaching to their advantage. But it's hard to say if any of their adherents are actually regenerated, blood-washed children of God. It's no wonder that Apostle Paul, fighting the earthly wisdom of extraneous errors, reduced his message to "Christ and Him crucified." (I Cor 2.2)

Why would any Christian denomination doggedly adhere to these extra-biblical teachings, espoused only by the fringes of Christendom, and rejected by nearly all Bible-based, fundamentally sound, professing, evangelical Christians?

[awareness]

Hey y'all, I have a dog in this fight, so to speak ... skin in this game.

Okay, we don't have a explicit doctrine of theosis in scripture. In fact, I talked to my local New Testament Greek expert, and we found that, the word theosis doesn't show up in the NT anywhere.

No matter. We have hints of it, and few verses that imply it. So it took 350 years and along comes :

Anthanasius ; speaking from back in the days when Christianity officially became a government sponsored corporation, in 4th century. 350 years for theosis to be discovered? That alone should cause us pause.

Then we have the EOC, that claims succession back thru the apostles to Jesus himself. They claim theosis too, but can't trace it back to Jesus.

Then we have johnny-come-lately, Witness Lee, with his 'becoming God in life and nature.' (He can't claim to recovery that, except for his extra-Biblical terminology).

Then in scripture we have sanctification. But more often than not that happens when we receive the Holy Spirit. So all born-againers are theosisized.

I'm happy about it. It's my skin in the game. That means, sitting here in my living room, on my computer, I'm theosisized, at the moment. And if theosis is real it's been going on from the beginning, and Witness Lee's small movement, has no corner on it.

In fact, there's lots of evidence in the Bible that God wanted/wants to make humanity God. And he wants it for all of humanity. If our population growth is an indicator, that, we're more good than bad, He seems to be coming along very well. (The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.)

First, God made us in His image. That's got to be some kind of divinization.

Then we ate the forbidden fruit and became 'as one of us." That was a quantum leap into divinization. That was when the devil came upon the scene, so claimed. Apparently, God had failed once, pre Adam, in heaven, when a archangel broke ranks. And now he, that archangel, that took the name 'devil or Satan' has been muddling up God's plan to make humanity God ever since. He's doing a grand job at it too, it more than appears ... in the news.

Let's not mention an example of physical divinization. That of the sons of God in Gen. 6. Look what that produced. Zowie !!!. Scary !!!.

But after becoming 'as one of us,' we had something that "us" didn't have : a physical body. And we all know that that is sinful just by the odors it emits if we don't, or can't, keep it clean. Plus, the physical body is clearly not God.

That is what needs to be divinized. So, as I've been told since little, God took on flesh, to die for humanity, to settle the score with God because of our sinful body, once and for all.

. . . And to also become 'a life giving spirit,' that we can receive. That's theosis that's been enjoyed by countless, down thru the ages.

Just one more thing, and if there's no new breakthru on this matter, I'll lay low.

Down thru the years I've see preachers that were harping on some sin, only for it to be discovered that they were committing that sin. Jimmy Swaggart is just one example among many. As a result, I've concluded that, the louder the moralist, the deeper the closet.

That makes me wonder if that's why Lee harped on theosis; if he had doubts about his metanoia, and was therefore harping on theosis, thinking it would save him. Who knows? But clearly Lee wasn't deified. Sorry.

But I get it. It's fun kicking around theosis in this sandbox. It's a fun notion. I certainly enjoy it. Like Lee, it's my only hope.

Still ... What I see from this discussion so far is that we've concentrated on what the Bible says, or doesn't say, at the expense of reality.

No one, that we know of, or recorded in history, since Jesus, has ever become deified. Sorry.

[Trapped]

The word become is not the issue it is the definition of "God in life and nature". If "God in life and nature" means the "economic Trinity" then it is orthodox, if it means the "essential Trinity" then it is heretical.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The word "become" is "the definition"? Really? You're diggin bro, you're still diggin. Keep at it and you'll be in Shanghai by the weekend. These terms "economic" and "essential" are related to God himself in his Trinity - they are not related to, nor do they apply to, what we, as God's creation have "become" (or what we have not become, as it were)

Oh Drake? You said you were interested in having some meaningful dialogue. Mr E has given us with some dialogue...but he has fallen short on the meaningful part. Maybe you can step in and save the day for Witness Lee and his teaching that we "become God in life and nature".
-

I am pretty sure that he did not mean the word "become" is the definition. I believe he meant "The word become is not the issue, the definition of 'God in life and nature' is the issue."

As an aside, I have not yet seen a post in blue text be anyone's other than UntoHim's, but the forum moniker listed is Evangelicals. I can't imagine Evangelical would refer to himself as "Mr E" either. Is there some glitch?

[Kevin]

Roman Catholics will always appeal to church Fathers. "Hey, the first church Fathers were the disciples of the Apostles so everything they wrote must be true. Same goes with theosis.