Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature?

Zezima · 08-24-2021, 12:07 PM

Is there biblical evidence to support the notion of Gods economy is to make man the same as he in life and nature but not the god head? I ask because as I break free from the teachings of LSM I am realizing that I don’t see this in the Bible. We are clearly being made like God, but the same? Is this a doctrine worth keeping?

Nell · 08-24-2021, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is there biblical evidence to support the notion of Gods economy is to make man the same as he in life and nature but not the god head? I ask because as I break free from the teachings of LSM I am realizing that I don’t see this in the Bible. We are clearly being made like God, but the same? Is this a doctrine worth keeping?

You might be interested in this existing forum topic by Awoken, created 2/8/2015, titled
Deification: Original Post

Deification: Last Post, #36

Nell

Zezima · 08-24-2021, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

You might be interested in this existing forum topic by Awoken, created 2/8/2015, titled
Deification: Original Post

Deification: Last Post, #36

Nell

2015 was a long time ago, there is a new generation of “church kids” would be good to have another thread.

Ohio · 08-24-2021, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is there biblical evidence to support the notion of Gods economy is to make man the same as he in life and nature but not the god head? I ask because as I break free from the teachings of LSM I am realizing that I don’t see this in the Bible. We are clearly being made like God, but the same? Is this a doctrine worth keeping?

All supplied reference verses are purely speculative, regardless of what LSM says. No scripture says that we become God.

Rather we are "made in His image." (Gen 1.26) "We shall be like Him." (I John 3.2)

Here is a little known fact: WL started this teaching in the early 90's, calling it the "high peak truths of the recovery" as a distraction from the horrible scandal plaguing LSM at the time concerning his son Philip molesting the sisters and abusing the brothers while he was running LSM as the "Office Manager."

Here is the "foundational basis" for this teaching "to make man the same as He in life and nature" -- If I am a man, then my son is a man, hence God's own sons must also be "God in life." The "God in nature" is derived from 2 Peter 1.4 -- "you might become partakers of the divine nature."

Since WL has self-assumed deputy authority, akin to the so-called "vicar of Christ" at the Vatican, his eisegetical "stretch" thus becomes gospel truth within the confines of the recovery.

Trapped · 08-24-2021, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is there biblical evidence to support the notion of Gods economy is to make man the same as he in life and nature but not the god head? I ask because as I break free from the teachings of LSM I am realizing that I don’t see this in the Bible. We are clearly being made like God, but the same? Is this a doctrine worth keeping?

Hi Zezima,

There are a couple paths that come to mind for me about your question.

The first is to talk about God's economy. So let's look at the main verse regarding God's economy, in 1 Timothy 1.

The Greek word for what Lee translated as "economy" is "oikonomia". It is usually translated as "management, stewardship, administration, etc". It can also be translated as economy, sure, with the understanding that it's not referring to a country's GDP. Economy in this sense means management, stewardship, administration.

It can also be translated as "dispensation". And dispensation in this sense means "a special period of time", but it is not the primary meaning of the word.

However, as is apparent, that is not the same word as what we know as "dispensing". "Dispensation" from oikonomia and "dispensing" are two different words that in English just happen to sound the same. But they don't mean the same thing, and they don't refer to the same thing. There is no form of the Greek word "oikonomia" where we would end up with "dispensing" like a liquid being poured as the translation.

But Lee didn't care.

He ran with it. He said that everyone had missed the key of God's economy, that God is dispensing Himself into us. But look at the verses in 1 Timothy 1!

3 Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things 4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.
5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith;
6 From which things some, having misaimed, have turned aside to vain talking,
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither the things that they say, nor concerning what they confidently affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully
9 And knows this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers, for murderers,
10 For fornicators, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teaching,
11 According to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted.

There's more to the chapter, but this is enough for me to ask "where do you see "God dispensing Himself" in this very passage about God's economy? Where?"

Someone else on this forum....maybe OBW?.....noted a while back that if you crack open Lee's The Economy of God, Lee's big support of his definition of God's economy towards the beginning of the book goes something like this:

"A survey of the scriptures will reveal that God's economy is to dispense Himself into......."

That's all. That's Lee's big scriptural support. He doesn't provide any other evidence. And then spends the rest of the book acting like his claiming it automatically makes it true.

"oikonomia" shows up in some other parts of Scripture. In Eph 1:11 it is the context of God's plan. In Eph 3:9 it is in the context of the gospel reaching everyone, both Jews and Gentiles, and that all can have boldness to approach God's throne. And again in Colossians 1:25, Paul refers to a "commission" (oikonomia) he was given, to proclaim that God has chosen to include Gentiles too.

Go read the portions I'm referring to -- test all things, including what any of us say here! (www.biblehub.com is a great resource where you can see numerous translations of a verse at once, as well as look at the Greek and how the Greek is defined.)

Nowhere is oikonomia anywhere in any passage that implies, describes, or points to "God dispensing Himself into us".

But with the foundation of God dispensing Himself into us, it's a short little leap to "you are what you eat" or "you become what you take in"....and all of a sudden we are becoming God (in L & N but not in the GH, of course). But the Bible doesn't say God is dispensing Himself, so the little leap Lee took has no foundation either.

I'll post a little later about the other path that came to mind.

Trapped

Trapped · 08-24-2021, 09:22 PM

The second path I mentioned that came to mind is regarding "becoming God".

Here is where the distinction between God (the Father) and His Son, Jesus, is important.

What does the Bible say about us? It says:

Romans 8:14
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

Romans 8:19
For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.

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

John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Galatians 3:26
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,

Galatians 4:4-7
4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

Got it? The Bible doesn't say we are God, are becoming God, or will be God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. It says we are children of God, sons of God, the many brothers of the Son of God. That's who we are and who we will be.

Not God. But His sons.

Big difference.

Yes, the Bible says we are partakers of the divine nature, but let's stick to that language then! What are we? Partakers of the divine nature. That's something different than "becoming God". Maybe partaking of the divine nature wasn't enough for Lee? Too bad. "Becoming God" goes way past what Scripture says. So I'm not going to say it.

Remember, you don't become what you eat. Are any of us sitting here as chicken? Okra? Boston lobster? Fish tacos? No. What you take in becomes a part of you, keeps you alive, nourishes you, sustains you. You don't become it!!

The Bible shows a lot of wonderful things about who we are in Christ - many of which I didn't touch on at all in this post. But Lee's doctrine on this subject can, in my digging into it and in my opinion, be tossed aside.

Trapped

Nell · 08-24-2021, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

2015 was a long time ago, there is a new generation of “church kids” would be good to have another thread.

Of course. Not meant to shut down the thread…it is forum history though.

Nell

Zezima · 08-25-2021, 02:34 PM

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

Ohio · 08-25-2021, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

Yes, sure. E.g. we could say that we are our parents, yet we are not our parents.

We are made in the image and likeness of God. We are also born of His Spirit. We are even to be transformed from glory to glory. Peter says we are partakers of His nature.

The entire basis of our belief system as Christians is the Bible, and more specifically that which the Spirit of God has decided to inspire in the many diverse writers of scripture. Consider all that God could have inspired. I believe this was specifically decided by the counsel of God. Many verses (and entire books) confirm this (e.g. 2 Peter 1.21 or John 15.26).

So we should content ourselves with what we have received, and not go beyond what is written. There much danger lies using speculations and inferences.

Nell · 08-25-2021, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

Wouldn’t that depend on your definition of “nature”? We all know Lee used language differently from commonly understood meanings.

Do you mean physically “born of”? Or spiritually?

Physical “nature”? DNA? Or what?

Nell

Trapped · 08-25-2021, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

I echo the others in the question of what does "nature" mean? As others have noted, Lee liked to use a word that sometimes didn't have any real meaning. For example, he taught that the "nature" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is death. Huh? How do trees have a death "nature"? It's meaningless.

And I'll repeat along with them, being born of someone still means you have your OWN life. We are born of our parents, but we don't have our parent's life or nature. We have our own life/nature.

However, I think there's something else mixed in here. Others can talk more/better about this, but I think what this drills down to is what the Bible says about how we become sons of God. There are threads out there about this on the forum (to anyone reading - has Nigel Tomes written anything on this topic?), but I haven't dug into it deeply so I'll just say a small amount here.

Galatians 4:4 says plainly we are redeemed that we might receive "adoption to sonship". The Greek word there involves adoption.

The Recovery Version leaves out "adoption" in that verse and just says "receive the sonship". But it's "adoption to sonship". And as we all know, adopted sons don't have the same "nature" as the father who adopted them. Lee's errors build upon themselves, and I think this is one of them. Numerous errors to peel back.

Ohio · 08-25-2021, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

There are threads out there about this on the forum (to anyone reading - has Nigel Tomes written anything on this topic?), but I haven't dug into it deeply so I'll just say a small amount here.

Galatians 4:4 says plainly we are redeemed that we might receive "adoption to sonship". The Greek word there involves adoption.

The Recovery Version leaves out "adoption" in that verse and just says "receive the sonship". But it's "adoption to sonship". And as we all know, adopted sons don't have the same "nature" as the father who adopted them. Lee's errors build upon themselves, and I think this is one of them. Numerous errors to peel back.

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? This article address the thread topic -- "becoming God."

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s ATTACK ON ADOPTION This article addresses Paul's teachings on legal adoption. WL was totally wrong on this one. For starters, according to Roman Law, which Paul used to speak of our own relationship with God, adopted sons were chosen. Adopted sons had more rights than birth sons. Birth sons could be disowned, but adopted sons could never be disowned. This paper detoxed me from WL's leavened teachings on the subject.

Zezima · 08-25-2021, 09:00 PM

This is all fascinating, and I agree. It's a very subtle jump to conclusion or inference. God's economy is one of the harder doctrines for me to shake. From what the word says, all things are being united in Christ (Eph 1:10) It's hard to grasp what that means, and Witness Lee's God's Economy fills that void.

So what does it mean? If god' isn't making us the same as he in life & nature, what is he doing?

Trapped · 08-25-2021, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? This article address the thread topic -- "becoming God."

Nigel Tomes: LSM’s ATTACK ON ADOPTION This article addresses Paul's teachings on legal adoption. WL was totally wrong on this one. For starters, according to Roman Law, which Paul used to speak of our own relationship with God, adopted sons were chosen. Adopted sons had more rights than birth sons. Birth sons could be disowned, but adopted sons could never be disowned. This paper detoxed me from WL's leavened teachings on the subject.

Those are it, thanks. Tomes' paper on adoption is very long, but I think the gist can be gotten fairly quickly. I just wanted to add after reading through some of that thread that I don't mean to pretend the aspect of being "born again" isn't in scripture. It very much is, of course. But Lee totally discounted the adoption aspect that is also there, and I think that error of omission made him unbalanced on this topic to the point of leading to this unhealthy teaching of "becoming God in life and nature". The adoption side of it helps keep our understanding upright and not upside down.

Trapped · 08-25-2021, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is all fascinating, and I agree. It's a very subtle jump to conclusion or inference. God's economy is one of the harder doctrines for me to shake. From what the word says, all things are being united in Christ (Eph 1:10) It's hard to grasp what that means, and Witness Lee's God's Economy fills that void.

So what does it mean? If god' isn't making us the same as he in life & nature, what is he doing?

I might not be able to help with everything you bring up there, but I can say a little more about God's economy, and it might tie into the rest too, we'll see.

As a church kid, I understand how all-encompassing God's economy feels. But the more I thought about it, for me God's economy ultimately went nowhere. So God's dispensing Himself into us. For what? Once we have His life and nature, what happens? What do we do then? Do we just exist bopping around reveling in the fact that we have His life and nature? The goal made no sense to me.

Let's look again at what the Bible says in the main verse LSM references about God's economy. This is the Recovery Version, but it's what people are used to when working through teachings, so it will be fine for this purpose.

1 Timothy 1:3-5
3 Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things
4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.
5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith;

Look at the structure of the bolded portion. Is Paul saying not to teach anything but God's economy (which is what LSM says it says)? Or is Paul saying not to teach things that produce questionings rather than producing God's economy?

By the way I've worded that you can probably guess. Lee, grammatically, got the sentence wrong. This portion is saying "hey, don't teach different things because when you teach different things it produces questionings. Rather, teach the right things which produce God's economy." If you look at the Greek, God's economy is what is produced by the right things being taught. It is not the thing that is supposed to be taught.

The ministry says over and over and over again "Paul told Timothy not to teach anything other than God's economy". But that's, plainly and simply, not what the verses say. God's economy is produced, not taught.

Ok. Let's look at the same verses again, but with a different part bolded.

1 Timothy 1:3-5
3 Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things
4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.
5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith;

Paul was writing Timothy, telling him in verse 3 to "charge" certain people not to act a certain way, but to act the right way so God's economy would be produced.

And then in verse 5 he says "the end of the charge [from verse 3] is love".

"The end" here means like "the goal" or "the point" or "the reason for".

The whole point of teaching the healthy things that produce God's economy is.....love.

Did Witness Lee ever manage to squeeze much of "love" into his "God dispensing Himself" doctrine? Not that I recall. But the Bible says that's the whole point of the charge that produces God's economy.

Ok. Last thing. If God's economy isn't the thing we are supposed to be teaching, but Paul is so concerned with teaching the right and healthy things so that God's economy would be produced, did Paul say anywhere what the right and healthy teachings are?

He sure did. A few lines down in verse 15.

1 Timothy 1:15
15 Faithful is the word and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.

The faithful word worthy of all acceptance (that's right and healthy if I ever heard it) is that Christ Jesus came into the world to save us sinners.

The healthy teaching that produces God's economy is the gospel. That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That Jesus died on the cross for you and for me. That our debt has been paid.

This is what the Bible says about God's economy. Teach the genuine gospel and God's economy, the end of which is love, will be produced.

The gospel is that God so loved us that He sent His Son to die for us. And we are charged to turn around and love others because of the love with which we have been loved. Love your enemies, love your neighbors, love your brothers and sisters. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. These are the greatest commandments.

That is some of what God is doing. Asking us to learn to obey Him in these commandments to love Him and love others.

Nell · 08-25-2021, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

So what does it mean? If god' isn't making us the same as he in life & nature, what is he doing?

Why don’t you ask Him?

He already did his work. He sent His only Son, a man without sin, as a sacrifice to save His people from their sins. Then Jesus said, “it is finished”. Did you ever hear/read a gospel message by Witness Lee?

According to Lee, this is the “low gospel”. The gospel of Jesus Christ wasn’t good enough for Lee. He embellished God’s word with his own spin and put the “Lee” name on it. The problem with “Lee’s ministry” is you have to study Lee, and the Word falls by the wayside.

IMHO we always need to read the Bible with a view of description vs. prescription. Ask yourself “is this passage describing an historic event, or prescribing a commandment to be obeyed or followed today in my walk with the Lord?”

Being the “same as God in life and and nature” is neither a prescription or description.

Trapped is right. Lee’s teachings are a mess. This one in particular is, if not blatant heresy, borderline heresy, or a non-Biblical Christian teaching. It “sounds” Biblical but in fact, it is not.

Nell

Trapped · 08-25-2021, 10:22 PM

All this, by the way, perfectly matches what Paul says in Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 4:14
That we may be no longer little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching in the sleight of men, in craftiness with a view to a system of error,

I mean seriously. You asked one question about one teaching of Lee's, and to unpack and explain it so that it makes any sense at all, we have to trace it along and untangle one teaching after another that each one is hinged upon.

This is a literal system of error. This is what the Bible means by that phrase.

Lee's ministry was an overarching tapestry of teachings that had to be understood in the self-contained context of itself. Everything hinged on everything else, everything was built upon some other understanding, some other pillar, some other foundational teaching of his. No wonder people can't get out! No wonder they are forced to "get out of their mind" to handle trying to untangle it all! We had to deal with dispensing, then our status in relation to God, then a life and nature concept, then adoption, then God's economy, all of which are huge intricate teachings of Lee's. But the answer to the first thing can't make sense unless you untangle all those stops along the way.

And this is just sprung from one question!

Thanks to UntoHim for providing a place where people can have a hope of working through Lee's system of error.

Ohio · 08-26-2021, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So we should content ourselves with what we have received, and not go beyond what is written. There much danger lies using speculations and inferences.

I understand the difficulty of growing up with a mindset that seems to fill a void and make so much sense. Eventually one might say that our minds become incorrectly "hard-wired" as a result.

Let me use an xample which affected me, my family, my friends, almost all my neighbors, in fact I daresay the entirety of my social interactions until I started college. We all held this same simple belief. It was obviously not in the Bible, but we were convinced it was. Every single figure of authority I knew in my life purported this "fundamental" truth. It was accepted as gospel truth, and never questioned. It was around for so long, that it just had to be true. It also became the foundation of our entire system of beliefs and practices.

I could go on and on concerning this matter, but let me just get to the point. If Jesus was God, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, then Mary is the Mother of God, and we should worship her as the queen of heaven. Do you see how this works? Now substitute some of Lee's exclusive constructs.

Nell · 08-26-2021, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

... If Jesus was God, and Mary was the mother of Jesus, then Mary is the Mother of God, and we should worship her as the queen of heaven. Do you see how this works? Now substitute some of Lee's exclusive constructs.

Great point, Ohio. Circular reasoning.

"Circular reasoning occurs when the end of an argument comes back to the beginning without having proven itself."

If you find yourself scratching your head on Lee-isms, this is likely why.

Nell

Ohio · 08-26-2021, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is all fascinating, and I agree. It's a very subtle jump to conclusion or inference. God's economy is one of the harder doctrines for me to shake. From what the word says, all things are being united in Christ (Eph 1:10) It's hard to grasp what that means, and Witness Lee's God's Economy fills that void.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Ok. Let's look at the same verses again, but with a different part bolded.

1 Timothy 1:3-5
3 Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things
4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith.
5 But the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith;

Paul was writing Timothy, telling him in verse 3 to "charge" certain people not to act a certain way, but to act the right way so God's economy would be produced.

And then in verse 5 he says "the end of the charge [from verse 3] is love".

"The end" here means like "the goal" or "the point" or "the reason for".

The whole point of teaching the healthy things that produce God's economy is.....love.

This line of scriptural reasoning was extremely helpful to me in 2004. When LSM decided to quarantine / excommunicate the Midwest LC's, we examined these verses. THE GOAL OF THE CHARGE IS LOVE! How can LSM promote "God's Economy" and yet be so void of Christian love? They missed the most important point! Hence they missed everything!

Without the basics of Christian love, LSM/DCP was thus fully justified in their own minds to condemn us for using contemporary Christian music in our young people's conferences. LSM/DCP was also fully justified to divide all the Midwest LC's by setting up training sessions to assist zealous local malcontents to file lawsuits against their own LC.

God is love. Love began the Gospel, and love is the goal of the Gospel.

Zezima · 08-26-2021, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

[/B]
Why don’t you ask Him?

He already did his work. He sent His only Son, a man without sin, as a sacrifice to save His people from their sins. Then Jesus said, “it is finished”. Did you ever hear/read a gospel message by Witness Lee?

According to Lee, this is the “low gospel”. The gospel of Jesus Christ wasn’t good enough for Lee. He embellished God’s word with his own spin and put the “Lee” name on it. The problem with “Lee’s ministry” is you have to study Lee, and the Word falls by the wayside.

IMHO we always need to read the Bible with a view of description vs. prescription. Ask yourself “is this passage describing an historic event, or prescribing a commandment to be obeyed or followed today in my walk with the Lord?”

Being the “same as God in life and and nature” is neither a prescription or description.

Trapped is right. Lee’s teachings are a mess. This one in particular is, if not blatant heresy, borderline heresy, or a non-Biblical Christian teaching. It “sounds” Biblical but in fact, it is not.

Nell

So then, what is gods economy since it can be produced?

aron · 08-26-2021, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

The healthy teaching that produces God's economy is the gospel. That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That Jesus died on the cross for you and for me. That our debt has been paid.

This is what the Bible says about God's economy. Teach the genuine gospel and God's economy, the end of which is love, will be produced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

So then, what is gods economy since it can be produced?

Remember that Paul was a disciple of Jesus, whose central teaching was to give to those who could not repay you in this age. Remember the parable of the Samaritan? They were talking about love to one's neighbour. Jesus gave a demonstration by parable, of a man who gave with no thought of return. He gave because of love. And he gave to a nearby stranger, who would never repay him.

But where do we see Paul echo this? My "crucial verse" (ha-ha) is found in Galatians at the climax of the council in Jerusalem, where the leaders of the mission there invest Paul with the outreach to the nations, "Only they said to remember the poor" (2:10). What did Paul say? Did he clap his hands on his ears and say, "No, that's not God's economy!"? No, he said he was eager to do that very thing! Imagine that! Why? Maybe because it was God's economy.

Furthermore, Paul goes into two whole chapters of 2 Corinthians (8 and 9) telling them, "It's better to give than to receive" and "he who gathered much had no excess, who gathered little had no lack."

We love not in word but in deed. By sharing. In this we fulfill the royal law, to love one another, says James. Which of you, having food or clothes sends your brother away naked and hungry? No, we share. (2:8,15,16). The one "work" James consistently stresses is generosity toward those who lack.

Now of course this is an idea, a theory, a reading, or interpretation. But so is that of WL, and I argue that this is more well-grounded in scripture, and departs less from the text, than WL's version. Where does Paul teach intensification? Nowhere. If so, why did WL say that it was part of God's economy that Paul wanted Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and produce? Clearly he's straining to put together concepts that are not together in the text.

But "remember the poor" is heavily cited in scriptural text from Proverbs and Psalms and Leviticus right up through the gospels and epistles. And look at Acts: Paul returns to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" in 24:17. Nothing about mastication or dispensing or enjoyment. (Actually, the RecV translates Paul and Barnabas' alms-giving in Acts 12:25 as 'dispensing'!) Or Zacchaeus - "Behold, the half of my goods I give to the poor". What did Jesus reply? "Now the kingdom of God is come to this house".

It's a fairly consistent line in the scriptural narrative, right up through the gospels. And Paul is remaining firmly in this line.

08-26-2021, 09:34 PM

Hey Zezima, later I will give make a thread I think you will be interested in and write something in a more ideal and professional manner.

As for your question, I am quite surprised you are not the basic principles of how Lee defines "Gods Economy". In truth school did they go in detail in Lee beliefs "God Economy". Also, I would be careful in your thought process. At this point it seems you are even familiar with the basic principles of "Gods Economy" yet you are at the same time convinced at Lee "God Economy" is as you state- " Fills that void". The Lords Recovery has a habit of making members blindly follow their doctrine regardless of if there is a legitimate explanation or backing of their teachings.

Gods Economy in simple terms is- The living expression of God as the body of Christ. Basically, the idea here is that the purpose of believers is to be joined together in unity to live and abide in Christ Jesus and truly be the image God wanted man to be.

Lee would use words like "Corporate body" or "Organic and Intrinsic" but its just lofty language aim to distract you of its lack of substance or expansion of its applications.

This idea or principle of "living" Christ is a fundamental of the Christian faith. Lee would go into hyperbole and saying something along the lines of
"Christians today only think that they are saved and don't value the idea of living and expressing Christ". This is not true and there are numerous people out there who have every intention of living and expressing God. In fact, the word of God is our guide on how to and when we reject it, there are severe consequences, and the fruits start to arise.

Many people have left the LR because they realized either through the storms, schisms, or their experience in their locality; expressing and abiding in God was either at a minimum insufficient or grossly rejected.

I am still waiting for my account to be registered. I also changed my mind; I want my name to be "FigNewtonLove" (beautiful name

Once I have an account, I will properly critique LR doctrine in a suitable manner. Hopefully this post gets through, and my account is made.

FigNewtonWarrior · 08-26-2021, 11:06 PM

Yay I got my account made. I guess FigNewtonWarrior was more humorous

Made some typos on my previous post as an unregistered user, here are the corrections.

1. "Hey Zezima, later I will give make a thread"
Corrected- take out the word "give"

2. "I am quite surprised you are not the basic principles of how Lee defines "Gods Economy".

Corrected- *not aware of the basic principles

3. "In truth school did they go in detail in Lee beliefs "God Economy".
Corrected/revised- *of Lee definition of Gods Economy

Will definitely work on using Microsoft Word and proof reading before I post!

Trapped · 08-26-2021, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FigNewtonWarrior

As for your question, I am quite surprised you are not aware of the basic principles of how Lee defines "Gods Economy".

Welcome to the forum, FigNewtonWarrior!

There was a song we all sang ad nauseum, which went like this:

"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."

Is that how you would say Lee defines "God's economy"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FigNewtonWarrior

Gods Economy in simple terms is- The living expression of God as the body of Christ. Basically, the idea here is that the purpose of believers is to be joined together in unity to live and abide in Christ Jesus and truly be the image God wanted man to be.

Is this definition what you felt that Lee taught or is it what you have come to conclude about what the Bible really says?

I know tone is hard to read in writing sometimes; I'm not asking these questions in a challenging way....I just wasn't quite clear from what you wrote and just want to make sure I understand.

Thanks,

Trapped

FigNewtonWarrior · 08-27-2021, 01:38 AM

Hey Trapped! I simply did a very basic paraphrase of how Lee and LSM would definite. I didn't feel like going on the Living Stream Ministry to copy and paste when I made that post and just made a clearer definition.

Lee Verbatim- 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."

My Paraphrase- Gods Economy in simple terms is- The living expression of God as the body of Christ. Basically, the idea here is that the purpose of believers is to be joined together in unity to live and abide in Christ Jesus and truly be the image God wanted man to be.

Ehhhh, Ill say I did a pretty good job (not perfect) of getting rid of all the fluffy language and making the definition simple. Also there are various circumstances that the LR would utilize additional "definitions" to Gods economy. For example to a newcomer they would say "do you know your purpose in life"? Then after you give an answer they dont like they would correct you and say all the things about "corporate expression of God and being part of his economy yata yata. They throw around all these terms and phrases constantly and give slightly varying "definitions" with a very similar theme (expressing God). Overall they say they intend to express God but in practice, they are severely lacking due to rejecting lots of scripture that reveal how to do that.

Ohio · 08-27-2021, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FigNewtonWarrior

Welcome to the forum FigNewtonWarrior! I had to laugh at this since my new neighbors across the street have a giant, but cuddly, warrior-like Bernese Mountain Dog named Fig Newton. This 125lb behemoth tip-toes around their cute little red-haired toddler. Adorable.

But back to the topic.

Lee Verbatim- 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."

I daresay that if Apostle Paul was asked to provide a basic summary of God's plan or "economy," he would not go to I Tim 1.4, but to I Tim 1.15, and he has basically spelled this out for us already.

"Faithful is the word and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

Zezima · 08-27-2021, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FigNewtonLove

The Lords Recovery has a habit of making members blindly follow their doctrine regardless of if there is a legitimate explanation or backing of their teachings. .

Yup, which is why I made this thread to discuss the topic openly.

So in summary, there isn't any explicit prescription in the bible for man becoming God in life & nature, but not the god head. There is no verse that says this. In order to get to this conclusion, you must take verses from different places of the bible, out of context, and apply them to that thought.

Like so many doctrines in the LR, I think people will continue to believe this because Witness Lee is the "ministry of the age" so he must have seen it, even if they don't see it in the bible.

So if someone in the LR asked you.. if God's economy isn't in the bible, what is the purpose of your life then? How would you respond?

Nell · 08-27-2021, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

...So if someone in the LR asked you.. if God's economy isn't in the bible, what is the purpose of your life then? How would you respond?

Lee's version of God's economy isn't in the Bible.

This hymn says it pretty well for me:

Listen here: The Servant King

Lyrics:
From heaven you came helpless babe
Entered our world, your glory veiled
Not to be served but to serve
And give Your life that we might live

Chorus:
This is our God, The Servant King
He calls us now to follow Him
To bring our lives as a daily offering
Of worship to The Servant King

There in the garden of tears
My heavy load he chose to bear
His heart with sorrow was torn
'Yet not My will but Yours,' He said

Come see His hands and His feet
The scars that speak of sacrifice
Hands that flung stars into space
To cruel nails surrendered

So let us learn how to serve
And in our lives enthrone Him
Each other's needs to prefer
For it is Christ we're serving

Nell

gr8ful · 08-27-2021, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I daresay that if Apostle Paul was asked to provide a basic summary of God's plan or "economy," he would not go to I Tim 1.4, but to I Tim 1.15, and he has basically spelled this out for us already.

"Faithful is the word and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

Thank you for quoting verse 15. After 30 years in The Lord's Recovery I knew 1 Tim 1:4, of course, but would have had to look up v.15 if you hadn't listed it.

Your reply revives my spirit.

awareness · 08-27-2021, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Yup, which is why I made this thread to discuss the topic openly.

So in summary, there isn't any explicit prescription in the bible for man becoming God in life & nature, but not the god head. There is no verse that says this. In order to get to this conclusion, you must take verses from different places of the bible, out of context, and apply them to that thought.

Thus creating a new book. One to your liking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zez

Like so many doctrines in the LR, I think people will continue to believe this because Witness Lee is the "ministry of the age" so he must have seen it, even if they don't see it in the bible.

What ministry?

Bible-believer · 08-27-2021, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is there biblical evidence to support the notion of Gods economy is to make man the same as he in life and nature but not the god head? I ask because as I break free from the teachings of LSM I am realizing that I don’t see this in the Bible. We are clearly being made like God, but the same? Is this a doctrine worth keeping?

I remember a Pastor once said that every verse has three applications, and not everything in the Bible is Christian doctrine. For example, Moses told the Jews not to eat pork, but Christians do.
1. Historical
2. Doctrinal-every verse in the Bible has a primary doctrinal and is aimed at a specific person, for a specific reason, to teach a specific truth.
3. Inspirational- 2Tim.3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Man is created in God’s image. Gen. 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Yet Gen. 5:3 said Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” Not God’s image, why? Because man has fallen, spiritually dead, and lost the image of God. So we need to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to regain the image of God.
John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” Rom. 8:29 “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
As sons of God, now, we should “put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Eph.4:22-23, and “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” Titus 2:13.
I don’t know where he got this idea from, or if he had a tendency to "big talk" or in his term- the "high peak truth." To me, Lee’s teaching on this matter is his personal opinions without biblical evidence. It’s not a doctrine at all.

Check his teachings carefully, and you will notice what causes trouble for the local church. Mostly because of his "high peak truth", such as "the processed God", the "four-in-one God", the "only ministry"，plus "your question".

I once asked my sister-in-law, "What's the difference between the ways of our (LC's) teaching and JW's teaching since both only refer to their own publication/the leading brothers' teachings?" She was silent for a moment, and said " no different".
It's like a dead circle.

Zezima · 08-29-2021, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

What ministry?

Witness Lee and his ministry is often referred as the ministry of the age, and that Witness Lee is the minster of the age.

Thus this gives him the authority of whatever he says is true.

awareness · 08-29-2021, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Witness Lee and his ministry is often referred as the ministry of the age, and that Witness Lee is the minster of the age.

Thus this gives him the authority of whatever he says is true.

My question is : other than "the minister of the age" minister of what? Seems to me it was the ministry of Lee, the authority of God. And that's absurd.

Zezima · 08-29-2021, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

My question is : other than "the minister of the age" minister of what? Seems to me it was the ministry of Lee, the authority of God. And that's absurd.

Minister of the high peak of the divine revelation, the update to date speaking of God. Not sure your question. People in the recovery believe things simply because witness lee said it because of the crown they give him.

While this view may seem absurd from the outside in, it's a very real view people have.

awareness · 08-29-2021, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Minister of the high peak of the divine revelation, the update to date speaking of God. Not sure your question. People in the recovery believe things simply because witness lee said it because of the crown they give him.

While this view may seem absurd from the outside in, it's a very real view people have.

I realize that's true. I was booted for not buying into it, way back in circa 1980.

FigNewtonWarrior · 09-01-2021, 03:49 PM

Isaiah 43:10

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me.

Drake · 10-10-2021, 11:58 AM

This thread appears relevant to continue this line as we unfold the truth concerning deification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

In all my LC years, I never heard Athanasius cited. For that matter, hardly ever was any church father cited. But when deification was being promoted, Athanasius was solemnly brought forth to show how well-grounded our teaching was.

And Athanasius' writings are not "the teaching of the Bible."

aron,

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius all taught the deification of His believers and the matter is laid out carefully in the ministry of Brother Lee. Other church fathers were also mentioned by both Brother Nee and Brother Lee when it was relevant to a topic. Brother Lee and Brother Nee's messages are available in a few clicks at lsm.org ....free to anyone who wants to understand when they said and why, including citations and commentary about the church fathers.

This came out when deification was being opposed.. you said "promoted" as if Brother Lee was running a marketing campaign of some sort. As it often occurred in the sacred canon and evidenced throughout church history biblical truths were unveiled due to opposition. For instance, when the spirit of antichrist appeared in the early church and some began opposing the deity of Christ, the very eternal God come in the flesh, then the writings of John were released. Opposition to Martin Luther helped recover the biblical truth of salvation and justification by faith. The truth was already there, but the opposition to it facilitated its unveiling. And no, their writings are not scripture and may or may not be teachings from the Bible but they are instructive either way.

As a teacher of the Bible in this forum, you might consider factually representing the teachings of those you oppose instead of just dismissing them because you never heard it when you were there. All the opposition research needed is just a few clicks away that can be used as a factual base to criticize their teachings and present an informed opinion.

Thanks
Drake

Drake · 10-10-2021, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is there biblical evidence to support the notion of Gods economy is to make man the same as he in life and nature but not the god head? I ask because as I break free from the teachings of LSM I am realizing that I don’t see this in the Bible. We are clearly being made like God, but the same? Is this a doctrine worth keeping?

I appreciate this question. Having read through this thread and the topic brought up elsewhere about the church fathers I'd like to explore a little deeper from a scriptural perspective.

Truth and sound orthodox doctrine are table stakes as the basis of our faith and it shows us the One who is the true light, who brings us His life, the life that is the light of men (John 1: 4, 9) to beget sons (v12-v13) and impart something of Himself, full of grace and reality (v14) into us as grace upon grace (v16).

The Bible not only reveals truth and doctrine but also shows the effect of the work of Christ that we may receive and experience His life, the life of the Firstborn Son. The impartation of Christ's divine life and nature into His believers is with a goal, that is to become God in life and nature. This is not a minor point in the scripture but essential to accomplish God's eternal plan.

We never become or share in any part of the Godhead.

Also, those who deny or have doubts about the deity of Christ will never accept that He has produced many brothers by the impartation of His life and nature. In this thread I assume the deity of Christ is for sake of argument, accepted. The arguments against Christ's deity and Godhead are best handled in the Trinity thread. I will ignore those arguments here.

Drake

Nell · 10-10-2021, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

I appreciate this question. Having read through the thread and the topic brought up elsewhere about the church fathers I'd like to explore a little deeper from a scriptural perspective.

Truth and sound orthodox doctrine are table stakes as the basis of our faith and it shows us the One who is the true light, who brings us His life, the life that is the light of men (John 1: 4, 9) to beget sons (v12-v13) and impart something of Himself, full of grace and reality (v14) into us as grace upon grace (v16).

The Bible not only reveals truth and doctrine but also shows the effect of the work of Christ that we may receive and experience His life, the life of the Firstborn Son. The impartation of Christ's divine life and nature into His believers is with a goal, that is to become God in life and nature. This is not a minor point in the scripture but the pivot to accomplish God's eternal plan.

We never become or share in any part of the Godhead.

Also, those who deny or have doubts about the deity of Christ will never accept that He has produced many brothers by the impartation of His life and nature. In this thread I assume the deity of Christ is for sake of argument, accepted. The arguments against Christ's deity and Godhead are best handled in the Trinity thread. I will ignore those arguments here.

Drake

Drake,

Are you God? Was Witness Lee God when he died? When does a person ascend to being God? What should we call you?

N

Drake · 10-10-2021, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Drake,

Are you God? Was Witness Lee God when he died? When does a person ascend to being God? What should we call you?

N

N,

Those characterizations are blasphemous because you mean God in His Godhead. I wasn’t ambiguous about that. Read what I wrote.

Rather, you may refer to me as one of the many brothers of the Firstborn Son of God who, by His grace, received His life and nature.

How about you? Have you received God’s life and nature? Are you a brother of the Firstborn Son of God?

Nell · 10-10-2021, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

N,

Those characterizations are blasphemous because you mean God in His Godhead.

Rather, you may refer to me as one of the many brothers of the Firstborn Son of God who, by His grace, received His life and nature.

How about you? Have you received God’s life and nature? Are you a brother of the Firstborn Son of God?

1. It wasn’t a “characterization”. It was a question.
2. You do not tell me what I mean.

Why teach “man becomes god”, only to revert to “Brothers of the Firstborn Son of God who, by His grace, received His life and nature.” If this is what you mean, why do you teach “man becomes god”, which is heresy.

Nell

Ohio · 10-10-2021, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

N,

Those characterizations are blasphemous because you mean God in His Godhead. I wasn’t ambiguous about that. Read what I wrote.

This is absolutely not a blasphemous characterization!

Have you not heard that in multiple locations brothers were seen screaming in the streets, "I am a baby God!"

Your response to Nell is totally disingenuous. Deification implies that we become God. No scripture supports this absurd declaration.

Drake · 10-10-2021, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

1. It wasn’t a “characterization”. It was a question.
2. You do not tell me what I mean.

Why teach “man becomes god”, only to revert to “Brothers of the Firstborn Son of God who, y His grace, received His life and nature.” If this is what you mean, why do you teach “man becomes god”, which is heresy.

Nell

Thanks for the question. The terms are synonymous: A son of God, a brother of the Firstborn, those who have received His life and nature and are growing with the growth of God are becoming God in life and nature.

It would be heresy if what was meant was becoming God in His Godhead or partaking of His incommunicable attributes. Never.

Drake

Trapped · 10-10-2021, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

...those who have received His life and nature and are growing with the growth of God are becoming God in life and nature.

Drake,

I'm trying to understand how you get from point A to point Z on this train of logic. It's like there are steps missing in the middle. Can you help fill them in?

Your claim (A) is that we have received His life and His nature.

1. Where does the Bible say we have the life of Christ?
2. Where does the Bible say we have received His nature?

Your conclusion (Z) is that we are thus becoming God in life and nature.

3. Where does the Bible say this translates into "becoming" God both in life and in nature?

I'm not trying to challenge you like I have in other threads. I'm trying to follow the reasoning. I can think of a few verses that might reasonably fit the bill here, but I'd rather understand your/LSM/Witness Lee's logic since you are the one making the claim.

I google "we have the life of Christ" and no verses come up, but numerous LSM-related sites come up.

Remember, God's life is truly immortal; impossible to die - no beginning and no end. Arrows infinitely to the left (past) and infinitely to the right (future). He is an uncreated being.

Ours is not, cannot, and will not ever be like that. It IS possible for us to die, but as believers we won't, because of God's promise. We can only have eternal life .... eternally to the right; we are created beings. His life will always be fundamentally different from ours, yet the claim/conclusion here is that we actually have His (fundamentally different from ours) life.

Trapped

Nell · 10-10-2021, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks for the question. The terms are synonymous: A son of God, a brother of the Firstborn, those who have received His life and nature and are growing with the growth of God are becoming God in life and nature.

It would be heresy if what was meant was becoming God in His Godhead or partaking of His incommunicable attributes. Never.

Drake

Drake,

Please provide the quote (link) from Witness Lee’s written “ministry” confirming that these are Lee’s words and not your own rendition of what Lee taught.

Nell

10-10-2021, 10:54 PM

Your claim (A) is that we have received His life and His nature.

1. Where does the Bible say we have the life of Christ?
2. Where does the Bible say we have received His nature?
Col. 3:4 says Christ our life, Peter says we are partakers of the divine nature, Phillipians says we have the mind of Christ.

Drake · 10-11-2021, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Drake,

I'm trying to understand how you get from point A to point Z on this train of logic. It's like there are steps missing in the middle. Can you help fill them in?

Your claim (A) is that we have received His life and His nature.

1. Where does the Bible say we have the life of Christ?
2. Where does the Bible say we have received His nature?

Your conclusion (Z) is that we are thus becoming God in life and nature.

3. Where does the Bible say this translates into "becoming" God both in life and in nature?

I'm not trying to challenge you like I have in other threads. I'm trying to follow the reasoning. I can think of a few verses that might reasonably fit the bill here, but I'd rather understand your/LSM/Witness Lee's logic since you are the one making the claim.

I google "we have the life of Christ" and no verses come up, but numerous LSM-related sites come up.

Remember, God's life is truly immortal; impossible to die - no beginning and no end. Arrows infinitely to the left (past) and infinitely to the right (future). He is an uncreated being.

Ours is not, cannot, and will not ever be like that. It IS possible for us to die, but as believers we won't, because of God's promise. We can only have eternal life .... eternally to the right; we are created beings. His life will always be fundamentally different from ours, yet the claim/conclusion here is that we actually have His (fundamentally different from ours) life.

Trapped

Hi Trapped,

I'm always happy to serve as a tour guide on the road of God's economy to observe and share all the amazing steps our wonderful God has taken to from eternity past to eternity future to make us God in life and nature as regenerated sons of God, the many brothers of Christ. Nothing brings me greater pleasure!

However, "A" begins with the Triune God...the Father, Son, and Spirit... ever-existing in eternity past to eternity future, co-equal in the Godhead, etc.

Since you do not believe that then we won't get past "A". It all starts there. Though the brothers in the Trinity thread have been diligent to lay out the truth, you remain unconvinced, at least according to your recent posts.

"A" is probably a non-starter for you.

Drake

Trapped · 10-11-2021, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped,

However, "A" begins with the Triune God...the Father, Son, and Spirit... ever-existing in eternity past to eternity future, co-equal in the Godhead, etc.

Since you do not believe that then we won't get past "A". It all starts there. Though the brothers in the Trinity thread have been diligent to lay out the truth, you remain unconvinced, at least according to your recent posts.

"A" is probably a non-starter for you.

Drake

Drake,

I have the ability to comprehend viewpoints and follow trains of thoughts even if I don't agree with them. Please proceed.

Thanks,

Trapped

Drake · 10-11-2021, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Drake,

I have the ability to comprehend viewpoints and follow trains of thoughts even if I don't agree with them. Please proceed.

Thanks,

Trapped

Trapped,

Okay.... mine was not a comprehension statement...you are highly adept in the art of debate.... rather it was a process statement. Else, we'll spend a lot of time covering the basics of the Christian faith such as regeneration, the deity of Christ, etc. And those are important but should be handled in other threads to give them the attention they deserve. I'll make certain assumptions about these matters here.

Thanks
Drake

Trapped · 10-11-2021, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Your claim (A) is that we have received His life and His nature.

1. Where does the Bible say we have the life of Christ?
2. Where does the Bible say we have received His nature?
Col. 3:4 says Christ our life, Peter says we are partakers of the divine nature, Phillipians says we have the mind of Christ.

Unregistered,

Thanks for that - Colossians 3:4 (Christ our life) and 2 Peter 1:4 (partakers of divine nature) were the verses I also had in mind that would reasonably fit the bill. I'm interested to see the train of logic laid out from these and other verses that results in "we become God in life & nature".

Trapped

Ohio · 10-12-2021, 06:24 AM

There are frankly many sections of scripture which gave ample context for the writer to introduce "we become God in life & nature". (For example, I John 3.1-3) Eventually I concluded that we must also be cognizant of what the Bible does not say.

WL, using his "recovery" and "MOTA" themes, really felt like he was completing scripture for the Apostles. Via his exaggerated sense of self-worth, bordering on megalomania, he convinced himself that his own esoteric teachings were scripture. He alone was charged by God as His oracle to expose the failures and condemn the errors of the rest of the body of Christ. God had deputized him, and would honor everything WL taught, whether it was scriptural or not.

WL used inference, like a run-on sentence, to develop his teaching "we become God in life & nature." Follow along with me: This infers that, and that infers the following, and thus it is perfectly clear that "we become God in life & nature," but not in the Godhead! There you have it!

Sons to Glory! · 10-12-2021, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Unregistered, Thanks for that - Colossians 3:4 (Christ our life) and 2 Peter 1:4 (partakers of divine nature) were the verses I also had in mind that would reasonably fit the bill. I'm interested to see the train of logic laid out from these and other verses that results in "we become God in life & nature".

To me the clearest is the relationship of Father and sons. While the sons have the Father's life and nature, and they are maturing and will look more like Him through the growth of this inner life and nature, they will never be the Father.

Trapped · 10-12-2021, 12:45 PM

Sons don't have their father's life. They have their own life. And where's the mother's life in this whole analogy?

What does it mean to have your father's "nature"? Does it just mean you are also a human being? Does it mean you have his disposition? Because father/son disposition similarity can vary widely.

"A son has his father's life and nature" is one of those phrases that needs a whoooooooole lot more explanation.

Trapped

Sons to Glory! · 10-12-2021, 01:36 PM

Yes, in one sense a person has their own life, but their father is the source, the initiator of their biological life. The father's and mother's genes come together and the offspring gets a mix. In my case, I completely got my body type from my dad, basically down to a fraction of an inch. And, even though he didn't really raise me, my wife says I have many mannerisms that look just like him . . . even a unique walk we share (which she thinks is a hoot). So I think that's a pretty good example of having my dad's life and nature. I'm predisposed, in many ways, to resemble him because of this life he passed to me.

Trapped · 10-12-2021, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, in one sense a person has their own life, but their father is the source, the initiator of their biological life. The father's and mother's genes come together and the offspring gets a mix.

I do get how it works, but I just don't think "I have my father's life" is an accurate or good description of it.

"My father (and mother) gave me life"? Sure.
"I have a human life just like my father has a human life"? Sure.
But "I have the life of my father?" That's......just not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In my case, I completely got my body type from my dad, basically down to a fraction of an inch. And, even though he didn't really raise me, my wife says I have many mannerisms that look just like him . . . even a unique walk we share (which she thinks is a hoot). So I think that's a pretty good example of having my dad's life and nature. I'm predisposed, in many ways, to resemble him because of this life he passed to me.

I get this concept too. So we use "nature" to really mean mannerisms/disposition/appearance? I know there are sons who have a calm demeanor or a gentle disposition just like their dad, for example, but there are plenty of other sons who have a calm/gentle dad and yet they themselves are completely different in mannerism and disposition. I feel like this "nature of the father" argument is only anecdotal.

Trapped

P.S. My issue with this might just be a personal issue for me with how the wording sounds. I think what gets me is "having the life/nature of my father" sounds too much like I possess something which a person cannot give to me. This is why statements like "become more like God" do better for me rather than "become God in..."

Like we say "that son is just like his dad!" We don't say "that son is his father in demeanor." Or "I have become my father in disposition".

(We do say "I see his father in him".....but we don't actually mean his father is in him. That's just an expression that doesn't mean what it objectively says.)

I am just like him in disposition? Fine. I have the same disposition as he does? Fine. But this "I have become my father in ......" communicates something different, imo.

Sons to Glory! · 10-12-2021, 03:41 PM

Yeah, I understand. One thing's for sure, we who believed were born again, not of corruptible seed. (1 Pet 1:23) But becoming God . . ? I think we're in agreement that's not to be found.

Trapped · 10-12-2021, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yeah, I understand. One thing's for sure, we who believed were born again, not of corruptible seed. (1 Pet 1:23) But becoming God . . ? I think we're in agreement that's not to be found.

Agreed!

Trapped

Drake · 10-23-2021, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Drake,

Please provide the quote (link) from Witness Lee’s written “ministry” confirming that these are Lee’s words and not your own rendition of what Lee taught.

Nell

1979 - Life Study of Galatians Message 20

"Some Christians oppose the use of the term God-men and even defame us for saying that the believers in Christ, the sons of God through faith in Christ, are God-men. But according to the Bible, it is a divine fact that the human beings can become sons of God. When we believed in Christ, the divine life with the divine nature--- in fact , the divine Being of the Triune God Himself-- entered into us, and we were born of God to become sons of God. Just as a man's son partakes of his life and nature, so we as God's sons partake of the divine life and nature. The offspring of a tiger is a tiger. In the same principle, God's offspring are His sons possessing the divine life and the divine nature.

Certain early church fathers went so far as to speak of the "deification" of the believers in Christ. We need to be careful in using such a term. To say that the believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. But it is correct to say that the believers are deified in the sense of possessing the divine life and the divine nature. We may use the word deification in a limited sense to convey the fact that we have been born of God to become sons of God. Praise the Lord that God is our Father and that we are the same as He with respect to the divine life and nature! However, we emphatically state that we shall never be the same as God in the sense of deserving to be worshipped. It is blasphemy to claim that, as sons of God, we should be worshipped along with God. But it is not too much to say that because we are sons of God, we have the very life and nature of our Father. Far from being blasphemy, it is a glory to the Father to declare this fact."

1980 - Life Study of Philippians Message 46

"Because we have the divine life and divine nature, we can truly say that we are divine. However, this certainly does not mean that we are evolving into the Godhead or that we shall ever become God as an object of worship. Furthermore, this is not to teach pantheism or the deification of man. Nevertheless, we may be bold to declare that as sons of God with the divine life and nature we are divine. Hallelujah, we are children of God with the divine life and divine nature!"

1984 - God's New Testament Economy Chapter 42

"The New Testament tells us that the Lord Jesus is God and the Son of God; also the Lord Jesus is man as well as the Son of Man. Some of the church fathers used the term deification to describe the fact that we have mingled with God and that we are partakers of God's life and nature. When you use the word deified, though, if you mean that you have been made God in His Godhead to be an object of worship, this is heresy. On the other hand, if your denotation is that through regeneration you have received God's life and nature and that now you are a son of God, this is altogether safe and scriptural. We all have to admit and boast of the wonderful fact that we have been born of God. We have received His life and His nature, and we are now partakers of the divine nature, enjoying the divine nature daily. We and our God are mingled together as one entity."

Drake

Drake · 10-23-2021, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, in one sense a person has their own life, but their father is the source, the initiator of their biological life. The father's and mother's genes come together and the offspring gets a mix. In my case, I completely got my body type from my dad, basically down to a fraction of an inch. And, even though he didn't really raise me, my wife says I have many mannerisms that look just like him . . . even a unique walk we share (which she thinks is a hoot). So I think that's a pretty good example of having my dad's life and nature. I'm predisposed, in many ways, to resemble him because of this life he passed to me.

StG,

And this is the whole point of becoming God in life and nature but not the Godhead. We don't become our fathers but we receive the life and nature of our father - humanity. The many grains of wheat receive the life and nature of the one grain of wheat. The offspring of cats have the life and nature of the cat who begat them. And as regenerated sons of God we have the life and nature of our Father who gave us our spiritual birth - divinity. A regenerated Christian not like a chimpanzee dressed up in human clothing. We are bonified sons of God, the many brothers of the Firstborn Son of God, in life and nature but not in the Godhead. This is the testimony of truth in scripture.

I heard Brother Lee speak this truth many years ago (see examples below) but it has since become my truth.

Drake

Ohio · 10-23-2021, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

1979 - Life Study of Galatians Message 20

"Some Christians oppose the use of the term God-men and even defame us for saying that the believers in Christ, the sons of God through faith in Christ, are God-men. But according to the Bible, it is a divine fact that the human beings can become sons of God. When we believed in Christ, the divine life with the divine nature--- in fact , the divine Being of the Triune God Himself-- entered into us, and we were born of God to become sons of God. Just as a man's son partakes of his life and nature, so we as God's sons partake of the divine life and nature. The offspring of a tiger is a tiger. In the same principle, God's offspring are His sons possessing the divine life and the divine nature.

Certain early church fathers went so far as to speak of the "deification" of the believers in Christ. We need to be careful in using such a term. To say that the believers are deified to become objects of worship is blasphemy. But it is correct to say that the believers are deified in the sense of possessing the divine life and the divine nature. We may use the word deification in a limited sense to convey the fact that we have been born of God to become sons of God. Praise the Lord that God is our Father and that we are the same as He with respect to the divine life and nature! However, we emphatically state that we shall never be the same as God in the sense of deserving to be worshipped. It is blasphemy to claim that, as sons of God, we should be worshipped along with God. But it is not too much to say that because we are sons of God, we have the very life and nature of our Father. Far from being blasphemy, it is a glory to the Father to declare this fact."

1980 - Life Study of Philippians Message 46

"Because we have the divine life and divine nature, we can truly say that we are divine. However, this certainly does not mean that we are evolving into the Godhead or that we shall ever become God as an object of worship. Furthermore, this is not to teach pantheism or the deification of man. Nevertheless, we may be bold to declare that as sons of God with the divine life and nature we are divine. Hallelujah, we are children of God with the divine life and divine nature!"

1984 - God's New Testament Economy Chapter 42

"The New Testament tells us that the Lord Jesus is God and the Son of God; also the Lord Jesus is man as well as the Son of Man. Some of the church fathers used the term deification to describe the fact that we have mingled with God and that we are partakers of God's life and nature. When you use the word deified, though, if you mean that you have been made God in His Godhead to be an object of worship, this is heresy. On the other hand, if your denotation is that through regeneration you have received God's life and nature and that now you are a son of God, this is altogether safe and scriptural. We all have to admit and boast of the wonderful fact that we have been born of God. We have received His life and His nature, and we are now partakers of the divine nature, enjoying the divine nature daily. We and our God are mingled together as one entity."

Drake

There is a huge difference between becoming sons of God with His eternal life and partaking of His divine nature VS. becoming God in life and nature.

You’re a smart guy. You can discern that the former is Biblical and the latter is Lee-ical.

Lee used to teach the former, and then after the horrible chaos Philip Lee inflicted on the Recovery in the late ‘80s, WL radically changed his teaching. He totally lost his way.

UntoHim · 10-23-2021, 10:28 AM

My old friend Drake,
Please spare us the Local Church talking points...you know, the ones you guys use on "new ones" who have no idea of what is really taught and practiced. After all, most of us around here didn't just fall off the Local Church turnip truck last night ya know. Nice try. I guess I shouldn't blame you for trying...but since you're the main LC apologist around here, I think I'll blame you anyway

Nobody has accused Witness Lee or his followers of teaching that believers are to be worshipped as God. That's a strawman and you know it. These absurd claims have been used for decades as a distraction and diversion away from the fact that Lee and his followers have taught a heretical view of God and of man, and of the true, biblical view of God's relationship with his children.

Here are a few quotes that more closely represent what Witness Lee taught, and what his followers have believed for well over a half of a century now:

"Thus, we are the sons of God, just like the only begotten Son of God."
"By His death and resurrection, the Lord released Himself and imparted Himself into us so as to make us exactly the same as He is. He is the Son of God, and He has made us to be the sons of God. He has the life and the nature of God, and He has made us to have the life and the nature of God. He is the very expression and manifestation of God, and He has made us to be the expression and manifestation of God. Therefore, we have the same life, nature, and position that He has."
"Hence, we have what He has, we are where He is, and we are exactly the same as He is.
Life Study of John Message 48

"God can say to His believers, 'I am divine and human,' and His believers can reply, 'Praise You, Lord. You are divine and human, and we are human and divine.'"
The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man pp. 51-52

"My burden is to show you clearly that God's economy and plan is to make Himself man and to make us, His created beings, 'God,' so that He is 'man-ized' and we are 'God-ized.' In the end, He and we, we and He, all become God-men.
"We the believers are begotten of God. What is begotten of man is man, and what is begotten of God must be God. We are born of God; hence, in this sense, we are God."
A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing pp. 53,54
(all emphasis added)
-

Drake · 10-24-2021, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My old friend Drake,
Please spare us the Local Church talking points...you know, the ones you guys use on "new ones" who have no idea of what is really taught and practiced. After all, most of us around here didn't just fall off the Local Church turnip truck last night ya know. Nice try. I guess I shouldn't blame you for trying...but since you're the main LC apologist around here, I think I'll blame you anyway

Nobody has accused Witness Lee or his followers of teaching that believers are to be worshipped as God. That's a strawman and you know it. These absurd claims have been used for decades as a distraction and diversion away from the fact that Lee and his followers have taught a heretical view of God and of man, and of the true, biblical view of God's relationship with his children.

Here are a few quotes that more closely represent what Witness Lee taught, and what his followers have believed for well over a half of a century now:

"Thus, we are the sons of God, just like the only begotten Son of God."
"By His death and resurrection, the Lord released Himself and imparted Himself into us so as to make us exactly the same as He is. He is the Son of God, and He has made us to be the sons of God. He has the life and the nature of God, and He has made us to have the life and the nature of God. He is the very expression and manifestation of God, and He has made us to be the expression and manifestation of God. Therefore, we have the same life, nature, and position that He has."
"Hence, we have what He has, we are where He is, and we are exactly the same as He is.
Life Study of John Message 48

"God can say to His believers, 'I am divine and human,' and His believers can reply, 'Praise You, Lord. You are divine and human, and we are human and divine.'"
The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man pp. 51-52

"My burden is to show you clearly that God's economy and plan is to make Himself man and to make us, His created beings, 'God,' so that He is 'man-ized' and we are 'God-ized.' In the end, He and we, we and He, all become God-men.
"We the believers are begotten of God. What is begotten of man is man, and what is begotten of God must be God. We are born of God; hence, in this sense, we are God."
A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing pp. 53,54
(all emphasis added)
-

UntoHim,

The statements you provided explain the same great scriptural truth as the ones I was asked to provide. They are consistent and any of them may be used to describe how the many sons of God become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.... not only not as an object of worship but not in any of the incommunicable attributes of God in His Godhead. The Bible clearly reveals that God's life and nature are communicable and have been communicated to His regenerated believers. It is in this and only in this sense are we made God. The Bible illustrates the life and nature oneness between God and His believers in many ways - the Church, the counterpart of Christ, being built out of Christ as Eve was from Adam, the Vine and the branches, the universal Head and Body of Christ, the One New Man, the Spirit and the Bride, the Spiritual House of God, the New Jerusalem, the One Grain becoming many grains, and the Firstborn and His many brothers the sons of the Father, etc.. Yet, if the scriptural illustrations are not clear then His direct speaking is unequivocal:

"And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word, that they all may be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that you have sent Me. And the glory which you have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that you have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me. " John 17:20-23

This is the testimony of scripture.

Drake

Trapped · 10-24-2021, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim,

The statements you provided explain the same great scriptural truth as the ones I was asked to provide. They are consistent and any of them may be used to describe how the many sons of God become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.... not only not as an object of worship but not in any of the incommunicable attributes of God in His Godhead. The Bible clearly reveals that God's life and nature are communicable and have been communicated to His regenerated believers. It is in this and only in this sense are we made God. The Bible illustrates the life and nature oneness between God and His believers in many ways - the Church, the counterpart of Christ, being built out of Christ as Eve was from Adam, the Vine and the branches, the universal Head and Body of Christ, the One New Man, the Spirit and the Bride, the Spiritual House of God, the New Jerusalem, the One Grain becoming many grains, and the Firstborn and His many brothers the sons of the Father, etc.. Yet, if the scriptural illustrations are not clear then His direct speaking is unequivocal:

"And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word, that they all may be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that you have sent Me. And the glory which you have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that you have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me. " John 17:20-23

This is the testimony of scripture.

Drake

But Drake........

Eve never became Adam, the Bride never becomes the Spirit, the Body never becomes the Head, the branches never become the vine, and the many grains never become the first grain.

Adam and Eve may have been one flesh, but Eve never "became" Adam in life/nature.

The Body remains connected to the Head but the Body never "becomes" the Head in any sense. The illustration there in 1 Corinthians 12 has to do with the relationship of the members one to another and honoring each other.....nothing about "becoming XYZ in life and nature".

The branches abide in the vine and are connected to the vine but the branches never "become" the vine. There are always branches and a vine. The illustration there in John 15 has to do with love, not "becoming in XYZ life and nature".

Oh, I know you might respond, "it is so obvious that anyone reading the verses would understand and it doesn't need to be said" like you've said in other places......but the more your theology involves "I know it's not actually written in the Bible but......" the more problematic the entire set of teachings is. You are doing what Witness Lee always did - importing an overlay onto portions of text and claiming something that isn't in the text.

To be sure scripture testifies of a connection or a position ("being in"), but none of the examples in your illustrations ever "becomes" the other thing.

This is classic taking the text too far and being careless with language and the implications of language.

Trapped

Drake · 10-24-2021, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Eve never became Adam, the Bride never becomes the Spirit, the Body never becomes the Head, the branches never become the vine, and the many grains never become the first grain.

Adam and Eve may have been one flesh, but Eve never "became" Adam in life/nature.
Trapped

Trapped,

Agreed.... The Body never becomes the Head, the branches never become the Vine, and the many grains never become the First Grain, and Eve never becomes Adam, etc.

Nevertheless, the life and nature of the Head and Body are the same, the Vine and the branches share the same life and nature, the many grains we're produced because they share the life and nature of the original Grain,

...and of course Eve has the life and nature of Adam since she was built out of Adam! Though Eve did not become Adam, she became human. We can say, Eve became Adam in his life and nature (human) but not in what makes Adam uniquely Adam.

Likewise, the sons of God, the many brothers of the Firstborn, also share the life and nature of God..... when humans receive this divine life and divine nature through regeneration then these humans by natural birth also become divine by the new birth (regeneration). This birth brings in the oneness between the Triune God and the believers prayed for by the Lord Jesus in John 17.

Drake

Trapped · 10-24-2021, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

Agreed.... The Body never becomes the Head, the branches never become the Vine, and the many grains never become the First Grain, and Eve never becomes Adam, etc.

Nevertheless, the life and nature of the Head and Body are the same, the Vine and the branches share the same life and nature, the many grains we're produced because they share the life and nature of the original Grain,

...and of course Eve has the life and nature of Adam since she was built out of Adam! Though Eve did not become Adam, she became human. We can say, Eve became Adam in his life and nature (human) but not in what makes Adam uniquely Adam.

Likewise, the sons of God, the many brothers of the Firstborn, also share the life and nature of God..... when humans receive this divine life and divine nature through regeneration then these humans by natural birth also become divine by the new birth (regeneration). This birth brings in the oneness between the Triune God and the believers prayed for by the Lord Jesus in John 17.

Drake

Your analogies to produce your conclusion simply don't work, Drake.

Eve didn't become Adam. At all. Nowhere does the Bible say Eve became Adam. Nowhere does anyone say Eve became Adam. No one says this. Anywhere. This is not a teaching found in the church....that "Eve became Adam" even if you tack qualifiers on it. No one says "Eve became Adam in life and nature" because that is not what happened. You know that and we know that.

If you say "Eve did not become Adam, she became human" then use the same construction for your strange "become God" claim: "We do not become God, we become ......" What's a better way to finish this sentence, Drake?

Well....here might be a good time to look at what the Bible says.....we become "partakers of the divine nature."

We have words for what you say you mean but refuse to use. Things like "the human race" or "humankind". You have the opportunity to use words like "part of the divine family" or "take on a spiritual body" or any number of things that are much more scriptural that are not "become God", but local church proponents simply cannot suffer to admit that the teachings in the local church go. too. far.

Eve does not "have the life and nature of Adam". She is a human like Adam is. She has a human life like Adam does. She has the same type of life Adam does. She is part of the human race like Adam is. But none of these things are "having the life and nature of Adam" and certainly none of these things are "becoming Adam in life and nature".

Come on. When I state clearly what you say you are saying and juxtapose it against the words you use rather than the words you should use, it's patently obvious how silly the claim is.

All the analogies you provide that you say render biblical support actually show clearly that the conclusion doesn't work.

Trapped

Drake · 10-24-2021, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Eve does not "have the life and nature of Adam". She is a human like Adam is. She has a human life like Adam does. She has the same type of life Adam does. She is part of the human race like Adam is. But none of these things are "having the life and nature of Adam" and certainly none of these things are "becoming Adam in life and nature".

Trapped,

Adam saw it differently than you do:

"And Jehovah God built the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said this time this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken." Gen 2:22-23

And the analogy worked for Paul as he applied this to Christ and the Church:

Ephesians 5:23-30. Verses 29-30 here: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body.

This is God's ordination in the propagation of life.. everything after its own kind. (Gen 1:20-31)

Drake

Trapped · 10-24-2021, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

Adam saw it differently than you do:

"And Jehovah God built the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said this time this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken." Gen 2:22-23

And the analogy worked for Paul as he applied this to Christ and the Church:

Ephesians 5:23-30. Verses 29-30 here: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body.

This is God's ordination in the propagation of life.. everything after its own kind. (Gen 1:20-31)

Drake

Drake,

You know this already, but you keep presenting "A being made from B" and think we won't notice you are trying to make it mean "A becoming B".

Can you tell the difference between the two? One does not logically follow from the other.

You know that Ephesians 5 is speaking of husbands and wives. The wife does not become the husband, neither in life nor in nature. The church does not become Christ. And the Body does not become the Head. You haven't helped your case at all; instead you are showing how weak the case is.

Trapped

Raptor · 10-25-2021, 06:48 AM

The Bible describes believers as having God´s life and nature, yes. But it never goes beyond that to say man "is God" in life and nature." I think this is overstrechting, not Biblical, pushing the meaning of words beyond what is necessary and leads to confusion and misrepresentation of the believers status and relationship with God.

The word "God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to God Himself, to Deity. Even in the world, even among "unbelievers" the word "God" is commonly understood as refering to the supreme being, the Creator. Using the word "God" to describe believers is an unscriptural use. That's why LSM always has to attach the asterisk and add "in life and nature, but not in the Godhead", etc. etc.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are? The Word refers to the fact that believers have God´s life and nature, yes, but the Bible multiple times identifies believers as "sons of God." That is what is scriptural, not confusing, and that readily places a believer in the proper relationship to God as Creator and Father. We are sons of God, not need to try to change the use and meaning of the word "God", to describe believers, stripping it of Deity and leaving it only with divinity in order to avoid heresy and then have to add paragraphs of explanations about how what you really mean is in life and nature only and not in the Godhead, blah, blah, blah.

Just stick to the Word, just like John said it, from the beginning to the end:

But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. John 1:12-13.

The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. Revelation 21:7.

Ohio · 10-25-2021, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Ephesians 5:23-30. Verses 29-30 here: "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body.

This is God's ordination in the propagation of life.. everything after its own kind. (Gen 1:20-31)

Drake

Can you explain why smart college students walked out of meetings with WL shouting in the streets, "HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT ME, I AM A BABY GOD!"

How do they transition from the teachings of scripture to these wild proclamations without the help of WL's errant teachings?

No one walks out of other churches believing and shouting such crazy things.

Drake · 10-26-2021, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Bible describes believers as having God´s life and nature, yes. But it never goes beyond that to say man "is God" in life and nature." I think this is overstrechting, not Biblical, pushing the meaning of words beyond what is necessary and leads to confusion and misrepresentation of the believers status and relationship with God.

The word "God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to God Himself, to Deity. Even in the world, even among "unbelievers" the word "God" is commonly understood as refering to the supreme being, the Creator. Using the word "God" to describe believers is an unscriptural use. That's why LSM always has to attach the asterisk and add "in life and nature, but not in the Godhead", etc. etc.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are? The Word refers to the fact that believers have God´s life and nature, yes, but the Bible multiple times identifies believers as "sons of God." That is what is scriptural, not confusing, and that readily places a believer in the proper relationship to God as Creator and Father. We are sons of God, not need to try to change the use and meaning of the word "God", to describe believers, stripping it of Deity and leaving it only with divinity in order to avoid heresy and then have to add paragraphs of explanations about how what you really mean is in life and nature only and not in the Godhead, blah, blah, blah.

Just stick to the Word, just like John said it, from the beginning to the end:

But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. John 1:12-13.

The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. Revelation 21:7.

Raptor,

Thank you for your well reasoned point of view and the spirit in which you delivered it.

After prayerful consideration I will return to discuss in kind.

Thanks,
Drake

Trapped · 10-27-2021, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

The word "God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to God Himself, to Deity. Even in the world, even among "unbelievers" the word "God" is commonly understood as refering to the supreme being, the Creator. Using the word "God" to describe believers is an unscriptural use. That's why LSM always has to attach the asterisk and add "in life and nature, but not in the Godhead", etc. etc.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are? The Word refers to the fact that believers have God´s life and nature, yes, but the Bible multiple times identifies believers as "sons of God." That is what is scriptural, not confusing, and that readily places a believer in the proper relationship to God as Creator and Father. We are sons of God, not need to try to change the use and meaning of the word "God", to describe believers, stripping it of Deity and leaving it only with divinity in order to avoid heresy and then have to add paragraphs of explanations about how what you really mean is in life and nature only and not in the Godhead, blah, blah, blah.

I agree with Raptor here. Part of what is going on is that the local church has redefined the word "God" in a way the Bible does not use it, and then points their finger at anyone who does not go along with their re-definitions.

It's what they do. Redefine common words to mean something else to keep their insider jargon and atmosphere of exclusivity. As another example, "Christianity" is a positive/neutral word to most Christians. But the local church has redefined it to mean something else and puts up a stink when others don't go along.

"Good" is another one! The local church has redefined "good" to be worse than evil! It's unbelievable!

Trapped

Drake · 11-06-2021, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Bible describes believers as having God´s life and nature, yes. But it never goes beyond that to say man "is God" in life and nature." I think this is overstrechting, not Biblical, pushing the meaning of words beyond what is necessary and leads to confusion and misrepresentation of the believers status and relationship with God.

So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are?

Raptor, thanks again for your post and thanks for your patience. I have been spending time before the Lord considering your words.

By the Lord's enlightening, mercy, and grace over time I have come to treasure reality. If I do not have God/Christ as my reality in what I believe and practice, and only possess a correct teaching, doctrine, phrase, or form then it is of little value in spiritual things... certainly to me and in my experience.

So I had a fresh consideration whether the phrase "God became man, to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is a biblical truth and if so, is it also my reality and my truth. And upon a fresh reconsideration I know that it is to me both. So, I will proceed to show it is not only a scriptural truth, but an imperative as pertains to the accomplishment of God's eternal purpose.

I also reflected on whether the phrase might cause confusion and whether the same truth might be represented better using different words. For instance, if the phrase were modified to "God became a man to make man divine" would that then be more understandable or less alarming? Though that is another way of describing most of what is meant in the original phrase, I decided to abandon that consideration because, it limits the full definition of that biblical truth. I believe the original phrase best captures the full revelation in Bible. I know you do not believe that but I felt it worthwhile to let you know that your objections were not dismissed or unnoticed and I have given them prayerful consideration before the Lord. For that I thank you.

I will share more shortly and look forward to reading more of your challenging and thoughtful posts.

Thanks
Drake

Ohio · 11-06-2021, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

So I had a fresh consideration whether the phrase "God became man, to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is a biblical truth and if so, is it also my reality and my truth. And upon a fresh reconsideration I know that it is to me both. So, I will proceed to show it is not only a scriptural truth, but an imperative as pertains to the accomplishment of God's eternal purpose.

I also reflected on whether the phrase might cause confusion and whether the same truth might be represented better using different words. For instance, if the phrase were modified to "God became a man to make man divine" would that then be more understandable or less alarming?

Yes, perhaps less "alarming," but why not adhere to the precise words of scripture? Why does LSM always need to push the limits of orthodoxy? Why not subscribe to the Apostles' teachings as recorded in the Bible? In this regard, the Bible repeatedly mentions our sanctification.

Sanctification really seems to be good enough for the body of Christ. Why introduce divination?

Raptor · 11-18-2021, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Raptor, So I had a fresh consideration whether the phrase "God became man, to make man God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" is a biblical truth and if so, is it also my reality and my truth. And upon a fresh reconsideration I know that it is to me both.

It is good to "treasure reality"....but our reality as christians needs to be based on the Bible and the truth in the Word. So how is "GBMtoMMG" a biblical truth? First you need to provide a biblical basis, verses, references, passages, sound and healthy teaching that show us clearly you have a basis to change the meaning of the word "God" to refer to something else different than what the Bible uses it for.

HERn · 11-18-2021, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

It is good to "treasure reality"....but our reality as christians needs to be based on the Bible and the truth in the Word. So how is "GBMtoMMG" a biblical truth? First you need to provide a biblical basis, verses, references, passages, sound and healthy teaching that show us clearly you have a basis to change the meaning of the word "God" to refer to something else different than what the Bible uses it for.

Nice set-up, let’s see what follows.

Robert · 11-18-2021, 05:33 PM

With full respect to all what was said here.

I heard recently good example of this kind problematic discussion.
" I have accent wall in my room. This wall is red like tomato. In my refrigerator is tomato. So, supposedly this wall is also tomato?"

Main problem with brother Witness Lee, (who has put together many things in very good teachings) was, that he wanted to find new words to describe spiritual reality.
We should be faithful and use only biblical verses and don't go too far in mind and philosophy, which WL did.
We can find many verses about likeness, sanctification, being perfected, Transformed into his image, etc.
But!!! When he used this expression it sounds like heresy.
I know all those verses he used to confirm it. And so what?
We can just have those verses and enjoy them.
As children of God we can grow, we can be similar to Him.
I can even buy all his explanations about gaining this similarity, life , etc. But
When it comes to banners or those statements- Big NO!

BTW, banners is another topic.

Cal · 11-19-2021, 07:58 AM

I have life, but I am not life. I have God, but I am not God.

Lee took the words "life" and "nature" and jumped to all kinds of conclusions that the Bible doesn't teach, like if you have life you "spontaneously, automatically" express the characteristics of that life. Well, it's not that simple. There is the matter of obedience. I don't express the characteristics of God until I obey the Spirit's leading.

What is the "I" that has to obey the Spirit? It's not God. Throughout eternity we will always have to obey God. Take out obedience and there is no "I." Therefore, there will always be part of us that is not God. We will be filled with, surrounded by and immersed in God. But we will not be God, even in life and nature. We partake of God's life and nature, we are not God's life and nature.

Another error of the "life and nature" argument is that somehow the Godhead can be separated from his life and nature. This is imposing the human view of these ideas onto God. God is his life. He is his nature. His Godhead inhabits both. There is no aspect of God that is not Godhead. To say otherwise is heresy. We cannot have God's life and nature without the Godhead coming along with it. So there will always be some distinction between us and God.

Deification is a extrapolation from scripture that can seem to be feasible with a certain logic, but the logic is tenuous and given that the conclusion is outrageous, sound reason and prudence clearly say it should be laid aside.

Lee did this often. The Minister of the Age, the Recovery, and the local ground are all examples of the kind of tenuous logic he employed.

Again, the LR's basic premise is flawed, as expressed in their view that God's economy is the dispensing of himself into us--as if his whole plan is to get something into us. Actually God's economy is that through the Spirit we have a relationship with him and through that we gradually become more like him. But he always remains him and we always remain us.

Sons to Glory! · 11-19-2021, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Again, the LR's basic premise is flawed, as expressed in their view that God's economy is the dispensing of himself into us--as if his whole plan is to get something into us. Actually God's economy is that through the Spirit we have a relationship with him and through that we gradually become more like him. But he always remains him and we always remain us.

Yes and no . . . in one sense we don't remain who we were, because that has been "crucified on Christ" according to various scriptures. And we are made brand new creatures . . . His workmanship/masterpiece. But what we shall be exactly is not fully known.

Quote:

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 1 John 3:2

Cal · 11-19-2021, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes and no . . . in one sense we don't remain who we were, because that has been "crucified on Christ" according to various scriptures. And we are made brand new creatures . . . His workmanship/masterpiece. But what we shall be exactly is not fully known.

I would say we remain who we were, just not exactly what we were. If there is no connection to the who that we were, then salvation is pointless. God would just start over with new beings.

Cal · 11-19-2021, 09:29 AM

Another example of Lee's tenuous logic is his use of the words "transformation" and "metabolic."

The Greek word in the Bible translated into our English "transform" is "metamorphoo." From which we get our English word "metamorphosis," which refers to bio-transformation. But the Greek word did not imply bio-transformation, but simple general transformation.

But Lee assumed that the Greek word carried the English meaning, which it doesn't. From that he apparently assumed that since "metamorphoo" and "metabolic" both contain the prefix "meta," they must be related. Thus he went from a simple reference to transformation to a biotransformation to a metabolic process that produces such a bio-transformation. Throw in "life and nature" and you have the roots of his "life" doctrine.

"Meta" means something that refers to itself. For example, a meta-essay is an essay about essays. Metaphysics means physics about physics, in other words the study of why existence is the way it is. Given his logic, it seems Lee thought it meant something about biology.

Clearly our experience of the Spirit is a life experience, and the Bible makes this clear by references to eating, drinking, breathing and growth. But Lee took that basic premise and ran with it to make all kinds of assertions which the Bible doesn't teach, like "you are what you eat," all kinds of presumptions about the significance of the Body of Christ, and deification.

Cal · 11-19-2021, 09:43 AM

Many of Lee's logic leaps might be true, but there is no basis to expect anyone to believe they are true. This is why they had to make him the Minister of the Age--to try to force people to believe what he said was true.

Sons to Glory! · 11-19-2021, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

I would say we remain who we were, just not exactly what we were. If there is no connection to the who that we were, then salvation is pointless. God would just start over with new beings.

Agreed . . . interesting way to say that! Regarding who we shall be, I think we can just say it falls into the realm of, "Much More!"

Robert · 11-19-2021, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Another example of Lee's tenuous logic is his use of the words "transformation" and "metabolic."

The Greek word in the Bible translated into our English "transform" is "metamorphoo." From which we get our English word "metamorphosis," which refers to bio-transformation. But the Greek word did not imply bio-transformation, but simple general transformation.

But Lee assumed that the Greek word carried the English meaning, which it doesn't. From that he apparently assumed that since "metamorphoo" and "metabolic" both contain the prefix "meta," they must be related. Thus he went from a simple reference to transformation to a biotransformation to a metabolic process that produces such a bio-transformation. Throw in "life and nature" and you have the roots of his "life" doctrine.

"Meta" means something that refers to itself. For example, a meta-essay is an essay about essays. Metaphysics means physics about physics, in other words the study of why existence is the way it is. Given his logic, it seems Lee thought it meant something about biology.

Clearly our experience of the Spirit is a life experience, and the Bible makes this clear by references to eating, drinking, breathing and growth. But Lee took that basic premise and ran with it to make all kinds of assertions which the Bible doesn't teach, like "you are what you eat," all kinds of presumptions about the significance of the Body of Christ, and deification.

May be I did not buy enough books of WL, but first time I hear it had anything to do with biology. In my understanding, it has to do the same as truth, that we are built as three parts man and we are in our bodies.
Our spirit, soul and body has to remain til taht day clean and holy.

So mostly I agree with explanation of WL, but he was only observer and he did not discover or invent circle.
Again we have dilemma because he wanted resume something in philosophic way and use new words.
There is a lot of verses about transformation, from glory into glory.
There is clear verse saying that in a while, in eye blink we will be transformed. I think it is only about bodies.
Transformation of soul take a place trough whole life.
I will not repeat what was said and what we can read.
I do not use LR terminologies.
However if we stick to verses only we will find many places about processes taking place in us.
Methanoya, renewing in mind of spirit...

Robert · 11-19-2021, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

Many of Lee's logic leaps might be true, but there is no basis to expect anyone to believe they are true. This is why they had to make him the Minister of the Age--to try to force people to believe what he said was true.

That is why I prefer to use biblical language or simply verses among saints.
As You said in some clip: " be normal, talk normal".

Drake · 11-20-2021, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

It is good to "treasure reality"....but our reality as christians needs to be based on the Bible and the truth in the Word. So how is "GBMtoMMG" a biblical truth? First you need to provide a biblical basis, verses, references, passages, sound and healthy teaching that show us clearly you have a basis to change the meaning of the word "God" to refer to something else different than what the Bible uses it for.

Absolutely Raptor.

And thanks for your patience...... I welcome your review and consideration of this first proposition.

The biblical revelation of the deification of man rests on the foundational matter that apart from Christ we are and have nothing. Everything the believer is and has is only a reality because of the steps and accomplishments of Christ's great and complete salvation (in both aspects - judicial and organic). Every believer was placed into Him as the sphere of salvation and He has entered into us as our life and content. We are in Him and He is in us. Therefore, it it helpful to understand who He is in His person to see what He is in the process of deifying His many sons.

The Incarnation itself confirms a distinction between God's incommunicable essence and His operations, economy, and energies. Here is what I mean:

Every true believer readily accepts that Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son of God, God as the eternal Word of God, became flesh, that is, became a real man, an authentic human, with true humanity as well as the pre-existing divinity He owned as God. The Only-Begotten Son of God refers to His eternal Deity, His status in the Godhead, from eternity past , as the Word, self-existing, ever existing in the Triune God, the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He also often referred to Himself as the Son of Man, declaring His own status as a man. These two verses clearly show the dual status of the Lord Jesus and every genuine born again regenerated child of God believes and accepts this. These points were established in more details by others in the note "Is God a Trinity?"

John 1:1 , 14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God".... " And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father ), full of grace and reality."

Rather, than replicate what has already been covered in the other note I will focus on the following point with that understanding as a basis "Does the incarnation of God as a man provide any support for the deification of man? If so, how?"

Yes, in this way. One of the oft stated or unstated objections to the aphorism "God became man to make God in life and nature..." is that even though the limiting qualifier " but not in the Godhead" is added, there is an underlying belief or suspicion that it is impossible to become God in life and nature without infringing upon the transcendence and otherness of God... that which makes God unique in His Godhead and Godhood. Or some might contend that though the aphorism may be true, yet it will certainly lead to the misunderstanding that there will be an infringement into the transcendence and otherness of God.

I am completely comfortable with the aphorism as stated because the incarnation itself reveals that God in His Godhead/Godhood was in no way intruded, trespassed, diminished, changed, or infringed upon when God was incarnated. God became human and at the same time maintained all that He is in His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, and otherness. Nothing was lost or changed when God became man. Do I understand how God maintained the immutability of His Godhead and still became a genuine man? No, I'm no more capable than an ant trying to understand the ways of a human! Nevertheless, I can accept it because God's Word tells me it is so. I believe it because He calls me to believe His word even if I do not understand it. I accept this as I would any other article of God's salvation in the Scripture.... by faith.

Now, how is this related to the deification of man.... The communicable attributes of God revealed in the Scripture are His life and nature, and by placing us into Christ and by imparting His divine life and nature into every believer then we become God in that aspect only....WITHOUT violating what God is in His transcendence, otherness, Godhead, or Godhood... that is, all His incommunicable attributes. The incarnated God, the divine becoming flesh, the Creator joined to the creature, maintained the immutability of His Godhead and in like manner the deification of the believer also maintains the immutability of the Godhead. By whatever means or capabilities God used to manage this paradox in His incarnation, He also uses the same to manage this paradox in the many regenerated sons He is in the process of deifying.

Therefore, the concern or belief that man cannot be deified without infringing on God's transcendence is unfounded and has no biblical basis. Rather, such a concern is based on something else, perhaps a pagan notion of deification, or the heretical Mormon teaching of men becoming God because God was a human like us once, or the humanism idea of all humans having an innate divinity. Yet, whatever the idea, fear, concern, or even a logical reason for rejecting deification, those reasons are not founded in the Word of God because there is a biblical definition of deification that every believer should joyfully embrace. My point in this note is that even the incarnation itself shows us there is no cause for alarm or concern. God has a way, a method, and plan and though I may not understand how He does it, nevertheless I can joyfully accept that He has, is, and will execute the deification of His many sons by His own design without infringing on His immutability in the same or a similar way as He managed that paradox in the incarnation.

I look forward to your response on this point.

Drake

Trapped · 11-20-2021, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Absolutely Raptor.

And thanks for your patience...... I welcome your review and consideration of this first proposition.

The biblical revelation of the deification of man rests on the foundational matter that apart from Christ we are and have nothing. Everything the believer is and has is only a reality because of the steps and accomplishments of Christ's great and complete salvation (in both aspects - judicial and organic). Every believer was placed into Him as the sphere of salvation and He has entered into us as our life and content. We are in Him and He is in us. Therefore, it it helpful to understand who He is in His person to see what He is in the process of deifying His many sons.

The Incarnation itself confirms a distinction between God's incommunicable essence and His operations, economy, and energies. Here is what I mean:

Every true believer readily accepts that Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son of God, God as the eternal Word of God, became flesh, that is, became a real man, an authentic human, with true humanity as well as the pre-existing divinity He owned as God. The Only-Begotten Son of God refers to His eternal Deity, His status in the Godhead, from eternity past , as the Word, self-existing, ever existing in the Triune God, the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He also often referred to Himself as the Son of Man, declaring His own status as a man. These two verses clearly show the dual status of the Lord Jesus and every genuine born again regenerated child of God believes and accepts this. These points were established in more details by others in the note "Is God a Trinity?"

John 1:1 , 14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God".... " And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father ), full of grace and reality."

Rather, than replicate what has already been covered in the other note I will focus on the following point with that understanding as a basis "Does the incarnation of God as a man provide any support for the deification of man? If so, how?"

Yes, in this way. One of the oft stated or unstated objections to the aphorism "God became man to make God in life and nature..." is that even though the limiting qualifier " but not in the Godhead" is added, there is an underlying belief or suspicion that it is impossible to become God in life and nature without infringing upon the transcendence and otherness of God... that which makes God unique in His Godhead and Godhood. Or some might contend that though the aphorism may be true, yet it will certainly lead to the misunderstanding that there will be an infringement into the transcendence and otherness of God.

I am completely comfortable with the aphorism as stated because the incarnation itself reveals that God in His Godhead/Godhood was in no way intruded, trespassed, diminished, changed, or infringed upon when God was incarnated. God became human and at the same time maintained all that He is in His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, and otherness. Nothing was lost or changed when God became man. Do I understand how God maintained the immutability of His Godhead and still became a genuine man? No, I'm no more capable than an ant trying to understand the ways of a human! Nevertheless, I can accept it because God's Word tells me it is so. I believe it because He calls me to believe His word even if I do not understand it. I accept this as I would any other article of God's salvation in the Scripture.... by faith.

Now, how is this related to the deification of man.... The communicable attributes of God revealed in the Scripture are His life and nature, and by placing us into Christ and by imparting His divine life and nature into every believer then we become God in that aspect only....WITHOUT violating what God is in His transcendence, otherness, Godhead, or Godhood... that is, all His incommunicable attributes. The incarnated God, the divine becoming flesh, the Creator joined to the creature, maintained the immutability of His Godhead and in like manner the deification of the believer also maintains the immutability of the Godhead. By whatever means or capabilities God used to manage this paradox in His incarnation, He also uses the same to manage this paradox in the many regenerated sons He is in the process of deifying.

Therefore, the concern or belief that man cannot be deified without infringing on God's transcendence is unfounded and has no biblical basis. Rather, such a concern is based on something else, perhaps a pagan notion of deification, or the heretical Mormon teaching of men becoming God because God was a human like us once, or the humanism idea of all humans having an innate divinity. Yet, whatever the idea, fear, concern, or even a logical reason for rejecting deification, those reasons are not founded in the Word of God because there is a biblical definition of deification that every believer should joyfully embrace. My point in this note is that even the incarnation itself shows us there is no cause for alarm or concern. God has a way, a method, and plan and though I may not understand how He does it, nevertheless I can joyfully accept that He has, is, and will execute the deification of His many sons by His own design without infringing on His immutability in the same or a similar way as He managed that paradox in the incarnation.

I look forward to your response on this point.

Drake

Drake,

I asked you to explain this a while back, so I feel like I have the OK to respond to this post even though you directed it to Raptor who also asked you to explain this. Like I said, I have the ability to respond as if I hold the viewpoint that God Himself became a man, that God is Triune, etc.... and I will respond from that viewpoint (the one you espoused in this post).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your reasoning is essentially that whatever mechanism allowed God to become a man without anything at all changing in His Godhead or His Godhood (your words are: "God became human and at the same time maintained all that He is in His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, and otherness. Nothing was lost or changed when God became man"), that is the same mechanism by which man becomes God in life and nature without God's Godhead/Godhood becoming affected. Is that right?

I think I represented your argument accurately so I'll keep going as if I did.

The problem is the assumption that what worked one way also works the other way.

The formatting restrictions in this comment box make it difficult to do a diagram without being able to do borders or tables or tabs or numerous spaces, but I'll do my best.

What I hear you representing for God becoming man is:

[ Godhead/God in L&N ] ------becomes--------> [ Godhead/God in L&N ] [ man ]

When God becomes man, based on what you said, God loses and changes nothing. His Godhead and His life and nature don't get reduced, don't get lost, and don't get changed in any way.

In other words, His Godhead and His life & nature are not separated. God retains it all. Nothing is split up. God stays the same. You can see that on the "diagram" - [ Godhead/God in L&N ] are on both sides of the "equation" because nothing changes or is lost in that regard.

In short, the entirety of what it means to be God stays the same, while becoming the entirety of what it means to be a man.

Ok, let's switch to the man becoming God side of things.

What I hear you representing for man becoming God is:

[ man ] ------becomes------> [ man ] [ God in L&N ]

The problem, based on what I have said already, should be readily apparent. It is not the same mechanism in the other direction. In this mechanism, who God is gets split up. In the first direction God retains the wholeness of everything He is. Godhead, life and nature, etc... But in this reverse direction, you have a scenario where God's life and nature is separated from His Godhead. This is not a comparable mechanism to the one that resulted in the incarnation.

Here what we have is the entirety of what it means to be a man, becoming a carved out subset of what it means to be God.....in a way that divides up God to the point where it results in something that is simply not "becoming God".

=============================

Going at this from another angle.....

You seem to indicate that God imparting His communicable attributes of God's L&N into man (let's call him "man A") is the vehicle by which man A becomes God in L&N.

God imparts God's L&N to man A -------> man A becomes God in L&N only

God had to communicate His communicable attributes of L&N to man A so that man A could become God in L&N.

Okay then, if this is the same opposing mechanism by which God became a man, then what you are saying is that in order for God to become a man, man had to communicate some communicable attributes to God.

Man A had to communicate his communicable attributes of L&N to God so that God could become man in L&N.

But this didn't happen. There is no "man A" that imparted human communicable attributes to God so that God could become man in L&N.

God didn't have human communicable attributes communicated to Him so He could become man. He simply became a man. And not "a man in L&N but not in the manhood" like would be required for your assertion to work.....He became a full man in every way it means to be a man.

=============================

It's kind of like saying "a square can be called a rectangle for the same reasons a rectangle can be called a square"!

But what works in one direction does not by default work in the opposite direction. A square can be a rectangle. But a rectangle can never be a square without dismantling the core of what it means to be a square.....to the point where it's not a square anymore.

Trapped

Robert · 11-21-2021, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Drake,

Quote:

You seem to indicate that God imparting His communicable attributes of God's L&N into man (let's call him "man A") is the vehicle by which man A becomes God in L&N.

God imparts God's L&N to man A -------> man A becomes God in L&N only

God had to communicate His communicable attributes of L&N to man A so that man A could become God in L&N.

Trapped

Few long and philosophic posts without verses.
In this digging You forgot about very mysterious verse in Genesis, that God created man in His/ Their own image.
Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

If go too far from Bible it will be not biblical discussion but philosophical.

1 Cor 15:33
Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals.
1 Cor 15:44
Awake to soberness righteously, and sin not; for some have no knowledge of God: I speak [this] to move you to shame.

15:44
it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual [body].
15:45
So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.
15:46
Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.
15:47
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.
15:48
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
15:49
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Again and again we have here a symptom of WL philosophic tendency to create new nomenclature to give better impression of revelation.
We can see all these verses even without WL or WN ( sorry guys! RiP).
Sanctification is nothing more than separation. Focusing our mind on inner live we got from God. We have to grow in this live.

I observe saints within LR and out side. I see, that saint outside enjoy biblical truths more than saints in LR enjoying so called TRUTHS.
In Word is reality.
After 30 years I see, that it is better to stick to the Word.
All is about spiritual sight.
I recall picture, where Jesus spat from mouth blended with soil and put on eyes of blind.
It shows us, that we need that what comes from mouth of God and is blended with humanity ( Adam was made from clay). So only by this mixture which is Jesus Christ, incarnated Word of God, we can see reality. Spiritual reality.
I do not need personally this LC banners or "truths" to grow up and live daily life.
I can testify, that in my whole life, only Word of God was operating in me.
Teaching and explanation is very helpful. But what kind of teaching do we need?
If we take a look on letters of Paul, we can easily see, that he was describing his experience by logic and understood words.
So very often in my life was, that teaching was reminding me my own experience and just putting together as puzzles pieces.
One of example was pray-reading. We do not have to produce practice or doctrine about it. If we just share spontaneously in group, some can find themselfe in it. Oooh, Yes! I had the same experience!
The same happen with Trinity, GBMtMMG, and many others.
If I have a cow which produce 10 liters of milk, this is impossible to satisfy 200 children. So, some people came to idea, that they can make massive production by adding water to milk.
Result after years is, that some customers did not agree with this scam. Reason was that they had a taste of good and original milk.
Does it mean that in fake milk was no piece of real ? No! There was something of milk!
So natural way, known to us from farmers, to increase production was to increase number of cows which can give a milk. This takes a time.

And again!!! Some people came to idea, to make it faster, and produce cows on an industrial scale! They took one cow, divided into pieces, put aside fake milk, and they said that this will produce milk. Nonsense!
This is what happened to FTTL students. Different mind, background, experiences, somebodies experiences, pushed to believe they have something, what they do not.

I do benefit from this ministry a lot. But this ministry is based on Bible. So Glory to God not to man!
Resuming, some saints, including me, throw away watery milk, and use that original.

That is why I do prefer to quote verses to build proper spiritual picture.
I do not think God wanted to leave us 150 topics to study it.
There are may be 150 topics, but they are just to describe our life journey.

If You ask what is life, some can say: my wife, my job, my children, my believes, etc.

Drake:Yes, in this way. One of the oft stated or unstated objections to the aphorism "God became man to make God in life and nature..." is that even though the limiting qualifier " but not in the Godhead" is added, there is an underlying belief or suspicion that it is impossible to become God in life and nature without infringing upon the transcendence and otherness of God... that which makes God unique in His Godhead and Godhood. Or some might contend that though the aphorism may be true, yet it will certainly lead to the misunderstanding that there will be an infringement into the transcendence and otherness of God.

This is exactly definition of what toxic words does in minds. Mess up.

Drake · 11-21-2021, 08:44 AM

Trapped >"I asked you to explain this a while back, so I feel like I have the OK to respond to this post even though you directed it to Raptor who also asked you to explain this. Like I said, I have the ability to respond as if I hold the viewpoint that God Himself became a man, that God is Triune, etc.... and I will respond from that viewpoint (the one you espoused in this post)."

Trapped, please feel free to respond. Of course you have the OK. I addressed my comments to Raptor because he is the one who is holding a scriptural dialogue. Also, in this note because I assume the basic article of the Christian faith concerning the Deity of the Lord Jesus then I simply mean any objections about that should be taken up in the Trinity thread where it is being discussed extensively. I'm also willing to engage Raptor because thus far he has refrained from snarky non-sequitur arguments. We may not agree in the end (but who knows, he makes compelling arguments), yet at least the reader will be presented with both sides of the argument from a scriptural point of view and can decide for themselves whether there is biblical evidence for man becoming God in life and nature.

Trapped> "Okay then, if this is the same opposing mechanism by which God became a man, then what you are saying is that in order for God to become a man, man had to communicate some communicable attributes to God."

Trapped,

I did not say this at all. I read your post 2.5 times and this is where the train of your argument jumped the tracks. So we'd best return to the Scripture as Robert exhorts.

John 1:1, 14 says that God, the eternal Word, the Only-Begotten was incarnated to be a man. Incarnation did not affect what God is in His eternal essence. In some way according to His transcendence and otherness, He made it work. Perhaps one day we'll understand it but until that day ants will merely speculate with each other how humans can ride bikes.

Since we both agree for this dialogue that Jesus is the incarnated God, the eternal Word made flesh, the Only-Begotten Son of God of the Divine Trinity, then we should be in complete agreement that incarnation did not affect His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, or otherness.

Are we in agreement on that?

Drake

Russian95 · 11-21-2021, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Absolutely Raptor.

And thanks for your patience...... I welcome your review and consideration of this first proposition.

The biblical revelation of the deification of man rests on the foundational matter that apart from Christ we are and have nothing. Everything the believer is and has is only a reality because of the steps and accomplishments of Christ's great and complete salvation (in both aspects - judicial and organic). Every believer was placed into Him as the sphere of salvation and He has entered into us as our life and content. We are in Him and He is in us. Therefore, it it helpful to understand who He is in His person to see what He is in the process of deifying His many sons.

The Incarnation itself confirms a distinction between God's incommunicable essence and His operations, economy, and energies. Here is what I mean:

Every true believer readily accepts that Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son of God, God as the eternal Word of God, became flesh, that is, became a real man, an authentic human, with true humanity as well as the pre-existing divinity He owned as God. The Only-Begotten Son of God refers to His eternal Deity, His status in the Godhead, from eternity past , as the Word, self-existing, ever existing in the Triune God, the Trinity, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He also often referred to Himself as the Son of Man, declaring His own status as a man. These two verses clearly show the dual status of the Lord Jesus and every genuine born again regenerated child of God believes and accepts this. These points were established in more details by others in the note "Is God a Trinity?"

John 1:1 , 14 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God".... " And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father ), full of grace and reality."

Rather, than replicate what has already been covered in the other note I will focus on the following point with that understanding as a basis "Does the incarnation of God as a man provide any support for the deification of man? If so, how?"

Yes, in this way. One of the oft stated or unstated objections to the aphorism "God became man to make God in life and nature..." is that even though the limiting qualifier " but not in the Godhead" is added, there is an underlying belief or suspicion that it is impossible to become God in life and nature without infringing upon the transcendence and otherness of God... that which makes God unique in His Godhead and Godhood. Or some might contend that though the aphorism may be true, yet it will certainly lead to the misunderstanding that there will be an infringement into the transcendence and otherness of God.

I am completely comfortable with the aphorism as stated because the incarnation itself reveals that God in His Godhead/Godhood was in no way intruded, trespassed, diminished, changed, or infringed upon when God was incarnated. God became human and at the same time maintained all that He is in His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, and otherness. Nothing was lost or changed when God became man. Do I understand how God maintained the immutability of His Godhead and still became a genuine man? No, I'm no more capable than an ant trying to understand the ways of a human! Nevertheless, I can accept it because God's Word tells me it is so. I believe it because He calls me to believe His word even if I do not understand it. I accept this as I would any other article of God's salvation in the Scripture.... by faith.

Now, how is this related to the deification of man.... The communicable attributes of God revealed in the Scripture are His life and nature, and by placing us into Christ and by imparting His divine life and nature into every believer then we become God in that aspect only....WITHOUT violating what God is in His transcendence, otherness, Godhead, or Godhood... that is, all His incommunicable attributes. The incarnated God, the divine becoming flesh, the Creator joined to the creature, maintained the immutability of His Godhead and in like manner the deification of the believer also maintains the immutability of the Godhead. By whatever means or capabilities God used to manage this paradox in His incarnation, He also uses the same to manage this paradox in the many regenerated sons He is in the process of deifying.

Therefore, the concern or belief that man cannot be deified without infringing on God's transcendence is unfounded and has no biblical basis. Rather, such a concern is based on something else, perhaps a pagan notion of deification, or the heretical Mormon teaching of men becoming God because God was a human like us once, or the humanism idea of all humans having an innate divinity. Yet, whatever the idea, fear, concern, or even a logical reason for rejecting deification, those reasons are not founded in the Word of God because there is a biblical definition of deification that every believer should joyfully embrace. My point in this note is that even the incarnation itself shows us there is no cause for alarm or concern. God has a way, a method, and plan and though I may not understand how He does it, nevertheless I can joyfully accept that He has, is, and will execute the deification of His many sons by His own design without infringing on His immutability in the same or a similar way as He managed that paradox in the incarnation.

I look forward to your response on this point.

Drake

Just my own thoughts - feel free to disregard as it seems this is an A and B convo, but since it's a public forum, I presume it's open to others to comment...the incarnation was not producing a Person other than the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. The human nature was added through a mystical process without altering the divine nature yes, but no new kind of thing was produced. With deification, however, the many sons would by definition be either other gods (polytheism) of the same species as God, or an enlargement of God (so the original, eternal God, mixed with additional "sons" to produce a hybrid, new kind of God - clearly unbiblical). As a side note - "not in the Godhead" always puzzled me as Godhead is most commonly used to describe all three - Son, Father, and Holy Spirit taken together. It is not a designation for the "head part" of God as opposed to some other part of God (that we become through deification apparently). There are no such divisions - the Triune God = Godhead, so we're becoming the God but "not in the Godhead" makes absolutely no sense.

Trapped · 11-21-2021, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped> "Okay then, if this is the same opposing mechanism by which God became a man, then what you are saying is that in order for God to become a man, man had to communicate some communicable attributes to God."

Trapped,

I did not say this at all. I read your post 2.5 times and this is where the train of your argument jumped the tracks. So we'd best return to the Scripture as Robert exhorts.

John 1:1, 14 says that God, the eternal Word, the Only-Begotten was incarnated to be a man. Incarnation did not affect what God is in His eternal essence. In some way according to His transcendence and otherness, He made it work. Perhaps one day we'll understand it but until that day ants will merely speculate with each other how humans can ride bikes.

Since we both agree for this dialogue that Jesus is the incarnated God, the eternal Word made flesh, the Only-Begotten Son of God of the Divine Trinity, then we should be in complete agreement that incarnation did not affect His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, or otherness.

Are we in agreement on that?

Drake

Drake,

Here is where my logic was, which I now realize I did not actually explain in enough detail:

Your explanation seemed to be "there is a mechanism we don't know by which God became a man. That same unknown mechanism is what is used for man to become God."

God became man / A --> B
Man becomes God / B --> a (little "a" to signify without Godhead)

The --> symbol is the mechanism.

However, you then actually discussed the --> mechanism for the man becomes God in L/N and not in Gh part of the cycle. You described --> as God communicating His communicable attributes to man. I.e., this is the mechanism by which man becomes God (in L/N but not in Gh). This green side of the cycle is therefore not unknown.

And if we know the mechanism of one direction, your explanation is that it's the same mechanism that occurred for the other direction. I applied the same principle by simply switching the parties since it's in the "reverse" direction, which is where I got the statement you disagree with.

As I write all that, I am now wondering......are you saying, rather, that the --> mechanism is ALSO God communicating His communicable attributes to man? In other words:

God communicates His communicable attributes to man = God becomes man

God communicates His communicable attributes to man = man becomes God (that much you have stated outright)

Is that what you're saying? It's the same thing in both directions?

Trapped

P.S. I am in agreement that your argument is that when God became a man, it did not affect His Godhead/Godhood/God-ness at all. That's the foundation of your argument, and I comprehend it. Obviously I don't agree with it, but that is not the argument for this thread. The "Is God a Trinity" thread was special permission and I'm confining my thoughts on it to that thread only. I am just interested in your own logic on this other topic, and if your own logic holds itself up as well as holds up to scripture after that point (my disagreement with your foundational starting point aside). In my inquiry, I'm working within the closed framework of your viewpoint. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought.

Robert · 11-22-2021, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian95

Just my own thoughts - feel free to disregard as it seems this is an A and B convo, but since it's a public forum, I presume it's open to others to comment...the incarnation was not producing a Person other than the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. The human nature was added through a mystical process without altering the divine nature yes, but no new kind of thing was produced. With deification, however, the many sons would by definition be either other gods (polytheism) of the same species as God, or an enlargement of God (so the original, eternal God, mixed with additional "sons" to produce a hybrid, new kind of God - clearly unbiblical). As a side note - "not in the Godhead" always puzzled me as Godhead is most commonly used to describe all three - Son, Father, and Holy Spirit taken together. It is not a designation for the "head part" of God as opposed to some other part of God (that we become through deification apparently). There are no such divisions - the Triune God = Godhead, so we're becoming the God but "not in the Godhead" makes absolutely no sense.

I do agree with You, Russian95!
This is exactly what unbiblical words lead to.
If we will keep along only biblical words we will be saved from deception.
We have bible tools like word search etc.
If we read carefully we will see our position , how bible describe us, and what we should think about ourselves.
That is why many false teachers deceive saints.
We have to separate leaven from the dough.
Witness Le has some part in christian research and works. No doubt. But not everything was biblical. So this our responsibility to verify what we believe in and on which basis.
We are children of God. Sons of God, brothers of Christ, disciples of Christ, servants of God.
edit: dust, leaves on wind, steam, things that are not.
Just notice what spirit comes into saints while they believe in such way described "truth"?

I see pride growing and growing. Later they start talk in neglecting way about other saints in denominations.
You can feel it in tone and words. This is far from being humble like Christ.
This is opposite work of different spirit.
If Jesus Christ was in form of God and humiliated Himself, so much more we, sinners should have humble spirit, praising God in godly way.
This proclamation "we are god-man" reminds me man standing in temple and praying in pride way, while other was kneeing, knowing how sinful he is.

Drake · 11-22-2021, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Drake,

Here is where my logic was, which I now realize I did not actually explain in enough detail:

Your explanation seemed to be "there is a mechanism we don't know by which God became a man. That same unknown mechanism is what is used for man to become God."

God became man / A --> B
Man becomes God / B --> a (little "a" to signify without Godhead)

The --> symbol is the mechanism.

However, you then actually discussed the --> mechanism for the man becomes God in L/N and not in Gh part of the cycle. You described --> as God communicating His communicable attributes to man. I.e., this is the mechanism by which man becomes God (in L/N but not in Gh). This green side of the cycle is therefore not unknown.

And if we know the mechanism of one direction, your explanation is that it's the same mechanism that occurred for the other direction. I applied the same principle by simply switching the parties since it's in the "reverse" direction, which is where I got the statement you disagree with.

As I write all that, I am now wondering......are you saying, rather, that the --> mechanism is ALSO God communicating His communicable attributes to man? In other words:

God communicates His communicable attributes to man = God becomes man

God communicates His communicable attributes to man = man becomes God (that much you have stated outright)

Is that what you're saying? It's the same thing in both directions?

Trapped

P.S. I am in agreement that your argument is that when God became a man, it did not affect His Godhead/Godhood/God-ness at all. That's the foundation of your argument, and I comprehend it. Obviously I don't agree with it, but that is not the argument for this thread. The "Is God a Trinity" thread was special permission and I'm confining my thoughts on it to that thread only. I am just interested in your own logic on this other topic, and if your own logic holds itself up as well as holds up to scripture after that point (my disagreement with your foundational starting point aside). In my inquiry, I'm working within the closed framework of your viewpoint. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought.

Trapped,

I'll rephrase and try to say it more succinctly. The eternal God, the Word of God, the Creator, joined Himself to the creature - through incarnation. In so joining, the essence of the Godhead was not altered. Jesus, the incarnated God, the Only-begotten Son of God possessed both divinity and humanity, yet by some undefined capability that only God has, His becoming a man, joining Himself to the creature, as flesh, did not change the Godhead.

That undefined capability in incarnation, or some other similar capability also maintains the barrier between God's transcendence, Godhead , Godhood, and the many sons He is deifying through the impartation of His life and nature. We will always be the creature and the believers deification is always in Christ and not apart from Him.

God is quite capable of joining Himself to the creature without affecting His Godhead.... and He is equally capable of deifying His many sons also without affecting His Godhead. God knows how to do this even though it is a mystery to us. Incarnation is a major proof point of this mystery.

Some reject the idea that man can be deified by God because there is a concern that deification elevates men to the status of God in His Godhead and Godhood. All pagan, humanism, and religious heresies about deification are to be flatly rejected, by every believer yet, the deification that is according to God's plan and recorded in His Word should be understood and completely embraced by every believer.

thanks
Drake

Russian95 · 11-22-2021, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

I'll rephrase and try to say it more succinctly. The eternal God, the Word of God, the Creator, joined Himself to the creature - through incarnation. In so joining, the essence of the Godhead was not altered. Jesus, the incarnated God, the Only-begotten Son of God possessed both divinity and humanity, yet by some undefined capability that only God has, His becoming a man, joining Himself to the creature, as flesh, did not change the Godhead.

That undefined capability in incarnation, or some other similar capability also maintains the barrier between God's transcendence, Godhead , Godhood, and the many sons He is deifying through the impartation of His life and nature. We will always be the creature and the believers deification is always in Christ and not apart from Him.

God is quite capable of joining Himself to the creature without affecting His Godhead.... and He is equally capable of deifying His many sons also without affecting His Godhead. God knows how to do this even though it is a mystery to us. Incarnation is a major proof point of this mystery.

Some reject the idea that man can be deified by God because there is a concern that deification elevates men to the status of God in His Godhead and Godhood. All pagan, humanism, and religious heresies about deification are to be flatly rejected, by every believer yet, the deification that is according to God's plan and recorded in His Word should be understood and completely embraced by every believer.

thanks
Drake

I just have to say - this is befuddling - God was always the same, inside and outside of Creation. There is none of "God's nature" that is "outside the Godhead," Godhead being defined as the entirety of God. The orthodox interpretation of the hypostatic union is not that God was changed, but "not in the Godhead." Instead, it's that although human nature was added to the Son of God, his divine nature was not altered in any way (otherwise this would violate the immutability of God in his essential existence, outside Creation). If you read any Eastern Orthodox literature, they are always careful to point out that God's nature is never transmitted to man, only his divine energies/attributes, like putting a sword in fire and it becoming red and hot. That is the deification of Eastern Orthodox, who take Athanasius' syllogism as the central point of sanctification. To sum up God's nature = God = Godhead. You can't take apart one without the other, ending up with a God not found at the beginning of the cosmos.

Raptor · 12-04-2021, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

The biblical revelation of the deification of man rests on the foundational matter that apart from Christ we are and have nothing.

There is no A.) "The biblical revelation of the deification of man:" the Bible does not teach that, directly or indirectly, nowhere. It´s a conclusion that goes beyond the scope of the Scriptures. Regardless, that statement does not logically follow the next statement you make: B.) "Apart from Christ we are ...nothing." B. is not related to A., there is no connection. For that matter, angels are nothing and have nothing apart from Christ....does that mean they are going to be deified? There is no logic, no basis for saying that B. is a "foundational matter" for A.

Raptor · 12-16-2021, 11:40 PM

The Bible has plenty to say concerning who the believers are and what they will be at the fulfillment of all things. The Bible uses many illustrations and metaphors to explain these realities. For example, believers are described as A. branches, B. the Body, and C. the Bride. In every one of these depictions, we can observe three important characteristics:
1. distinction between the believers and God
2. importance and significance of the relationship between the believers and God
3. a complete lack of implication or "revelation" that man becomes God (IL&NnotGH)

A. The Lord said, "I am the Vine you are the branches." 1.) The Lord strongly emphasizes the distinction between God and man, Vine and branches. Even to the extent that if the branches do not abide in the Vine they will wither, are cut off and burned in the fire. 2.) There is much to say and learn concerning the relationship between the Vine and the branches, including their oneness, the branches receiving life and life supply from the Vine, branches not being able to do nothing apart from the Vine and bearing fruit to glorify the Father. All these important points are based on the relationship between the branches and the Vine which highlights the distinction between the two. 3.) Never does the Lord teach directly or indirectly that the branches are "becoming the Vine." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that the Lord means that "the branches are becoming the Vine in life and nature but not in the Vine-head."

B. The Apostle Paul said, "So we who are many are one Body in Christ, and individually members one of another," and "But holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ." 1.) The description of the Body of Christ absolutely emphasizes the distinction between the members and the Head. The members grow into the Head, some members do not hold unto the Head, all things are subjected under the Head, and there are many different members with different functions directed by the Head. 2.)The use of the body as a metaphor is a great means to show the relationship between the members and the Head and between the many different members. Members are joined to one another and to the head, sharing the same blood flow and life. Members do not do things independently from the head, they are directed and controlled by the head. All members have an important function and they coordinate with each other to one degree or another for the purposes of the head. These vertical and horizontal relationships are crucial in the Bible and they underline the distinction not only between the Head and the members, but also between the members. 3.)Never does Paul teach directly or indirectly that the members are "becoming the Head." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that Paul means that "the members are becoming the Head in life and nature but not in the Head-head."

C.The Apostle John wrote, "Let us rejoice and exult, and let us give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." 1.) Surely there is a clear distinction between the Lamb and His wife, between the Husband and the Bride. Yes they are one, they are "one flesh," yet believers are completely distinct, each with their own personality, virtue and functions. 2.) This distinction is the foundation for the proper relationship where believers submit to their Head and fear their Husband. They love the Lord and allow Him to sanctify them and are diligent to get ready for their marriage to Him. 3.) Never does John write directly or indirectly that the wife is "becoming the Husband." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that John means that "the Bride is becoming the Husband in life and nature but not in the Husband-head."

When the Bible describes believers, it delineates a clear distinction between man and God. This distinction is the foundation for believers to have a proper relationship with God and with one another, in many different aspects. The Bible never teaches that man is becoming God (IL&NnotGH); that conclusion goes beyond Scripture, it blurs the distinction between man and God, Vine and branches, Head and Body, Husband and wife. And it undermines the proper relationship that believers should have with God: abiding in Him, depending and subsisting on Him, obeying and coordinating with Him, loving, submitting and fearing Him.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen. Rev. 22:21.

Sons to Glory! · 12-17-2021, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Bible has plenty to say concerning who the believers are and what they will be at the fulfillment of all things. The Bible uses many illustrations and metaphors to explain these realities. For example, believers are described as A. branches, B. the Body, and C. the Bride.

I would also add to these three B's that believers are depicted as, another "B" - building/house. "You are God's house." (Hebrews 3:6, Ephesians 2:22 & 1 Peter 2:5)

Robert · 12-17-2021, 02:05 PM

Whatever we call ourselves or what happen in us, this is not small thing in that universe, that God Himself decided to share His spirit with us.Don't You think so?
Ez 36:27
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Nell · 12-17-2021, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

Whatever we call ourselves or what happen in us, this is not small thing in that universe, that God Himself decided to share His spirit with us.Don't You think so?
Ez 36:27
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Putting the spirit in man is not the same as man becoming God.

Cal · 12-18-2021, 07:58 AM

People can argue all day and night that man becomes God. But unless they can point out to me where the Bible explicitly says it beyond the shadow of doubt, I'm not going to believe it. So yak all day about it if you want. Unless you come up with a better argument than you have, I ain't buyin'.

Robert · 12-18-2021, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Putting the spirit in man is not the same as man becoming God.

I know and I am clear about that false teaching.
I just added this verse for all of You to enjoy it among this pictures of branches etc.
No matter what verses we collect to built doctrine, I would never teach saints using such a statement. God is God and creation is creation.
We can see already what happen in Christianity with people who dare to say "I am God" or "We are gods".
I see posts below and verses.
Never but never we should put all this as conclusion or words resuming those pictures.
If that reality of Heavenly Kingdom would be so simple, so why Jesus used so many different pictures?
Why He never said " I am God" even he was?
My understanding of it is, that His human experience is included now in Holly Spirit "which was not yet". If He had then said "I am God" this ability to say it in human body would be brought in Holly Spirit in us. Then Kenneth Copeland would be excused and many other false charismatic teachers as well.
So Jesus Himself was God, but never said "I am God" what many people searching for as only proof that He was.
After few decades of that teaching, I see some fruits in some saints.
They believe in that process of deification so much, that they forgot to be human as Jesus was.

Robert · 12-18-2021, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

People can argue all day and night that man becomes God. But unless they can point out to me where the Bible explicitly says it beyond the shadow of doubt, I'm not going to believe it. So yak all day about it if you want. Unless you come up with a better argument than you have, I ain't buyin'.

I think that is why we have such a disputes. People want to "sell" and some want to "buy".
But beside teaching, which can be correct or wrong, we should grow in knowing Christ personally. This relationship is by being one with Holly Spirit. So even common sense in us, in our spirit, gives red light, that a certain limit has been exceeded.
Is it not enough for human being to be called children of God?
Isn't enough to be brothers of Christ?
New creation, branches, flock, sheep, servants etc.
Whatever comes to our mind, even revelation or better understanding of spiritual reality of Heavenly Kingdom- no need to create new definition, teaching and especially such statement.
Let us keep only what is written about us.

There is a saying about arguing brothers: They are "Yes, but..."
Lord said": Your yes must be yes, and no must be no". (
Now little joke, Cal:

Monkey is human, in this and that similarity, but not in humanity!
Does it make any sens?

Zezima · 12-18-2021, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

People can argue all day and night that man becomes God. But unless they can point out to me where the Bible explicitly says it beyond the shadow of doubt, I'm not going to believe it. So yak all day about it if you want. Unless you come up with a better argument than you have, I ain't buyin'.

While I agree, this logic doesn’t hold up to other Christian teachings such as the trinity.

Ohio · 12-19-2021, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

While I agree, this logic doesn’t hold up to other Christian teachings such as the trinity.

How can the church have Christian teachings that are not in the Bible?

Robert · 12-19-2021, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can the church have Christian teachings that are not in the Bible?

Can I guess? By wrong interpretation or putting verses together? By cutting or passing by some verses?
By seeing only letter not using spirit?
By few other reasons?

Zezima · 12-19-2021, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can the church have Christian teachings that are not in the Bible?

The church cannot, the fallen members can for a number a reasons. Great question response.

I think that the Lord’s Recovery has teachings that aren’t explicitly in the word but rather are constructed by slicing the Bible. They take verses from out of context and add them together to cook up doctrines that are supported by verses. Verses that are leveraged to support the doctrine, but they aren’t verses in context are speaking of that doctrine.

Verse A talks about topic C
Verse B talks about topic Z
Verse C talks about topic H

The LR takes verse A, B, & C and says they are all talking about Topic G. That’s my conclusion in regards to man becoming God in Life & nature.

Ohio · 12-20-2021, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

Can I guess? By wrong interpretation or putting verses together? By cutting or passing by some verses?
By seeing only letter not using spirit?
By few other reasons?

Of course it was a rhetorical question, but it should be a reminder to all Christians that the Bible alone is the word of God. Those teachings which go beyond the plain words of the Bible should never be considered God's word, and should be considered only interpretations. Interpretations are not all bad, but should be identified as such to the body of Christ.

WL had a habit of including inference as doctrine, in other words he would make his interpretations into dogma which all must adhere to.

Trapped · 12-21-2021, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

While I agree, this logic doesn’t hold up to other Christian teachings such as the trinity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can the church have Christian teachings that are not in the Bible?

Pretty easily.

This is an incredibly minor example, but.....you know the three wise men?

The Bible never says there were three of them.

There were three gifts. There were some wise men. But the Bible never says there were three of those wise men.

And yet the phrase "three wise men" rolls off our tongue.

Another example - "you have to forgive no matter what". I have heard this taught in the church. A common Christian teaching.

But it's not found in the Bible! I butted my head against it for years because it made no sense. "No matter what?" God doesn't even do that! And the illogic of it drove me to see whether it was true.

When logic doesn't hold up to things (like becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead)....that's when it's time to look into them.

Trapped

Sons to Glory! · 12-21-2021, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Pretty easily.

This is an incredibly minor example, but.....you know the three wise men?

The Bible never says there were three of them.

There were three gifts. There were some wise men. But the Bible never says there were three of those wise men.

And yet the phrase "three wise men" rolls off our tongue.

Another one that comes to mind is that the Lord knocked Paul off his horse on the road to Damascus!

Ohio · 12-21-2021, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Pretty easily.

This is an incredibly minor example, but.....you know the three wise men?

The Bible never says there were three of them.

There were three gifts. There were some wise men. But the Bible never says there were three of those wise men.

And yet the phrase "three wise men" rolls off our tongue.

You're right, Trapped, and I would add that all "speculations" are not created equal. Some speculations are entirely innocuous like the number of wise men. It's the more serious ones like "deputy authority" and the "ground of oneness" being merely local geography, that must be addressed.

It should also be noted that the Wise Men never made it to the "manger" where the shepherds worshiped, contrary to all the Nativity scenes we see. They found Jesus in a "house" perhaps days or weeks later (Matt 2.9-12), and probably after Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and then presented in the Temple in Jerusalem. (Luke 2.21-38)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Another example - "you have to forgive no matter what". I have heard this taught in the church. A common Christian teaching.

But it's not found in the Bible! I butted my head against it for years because it made no sense. "No matter what?" God doesn't even do that! And the illogic of it drove me to see whether it was true.

When logic doesn't hold up to things (like becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead)....that's when it's time to look into them.

Trapped

Agree again. It's time to look into them! I think this principle should be applied to every thing in life (including the news) we take for granted, or have been indoctrinated with. As Paul said, "Test all things ..." (I Thess 5.21)

Trapped · 12-21-2021, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You're right, Trapped, and I would add that all "speculations" are not created equal. Some speculations are entirely innocuous like the number of wise men. It's the more serious ones like "deputy authority" and the "ground of oneness" being merely local geography, that must be addressed.

It should also be noted that the Wise Men never made it to the "manger" where the shepherds worshiped, contrary to all the Nativity scenes we see. They found Jesus in a "house" perhaps days or weeks later (Matt 2.9-12), and probably after Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and then presented in the Temple in Jerusalem. (Luke 2.21-38)

I agree, not all of these things are created equal. I honestly just got a big kick out the wise men thing when I learned it just last week. How many more of those things am I walking around "sure" of just because I haven't checked it out for myself!!

The manger thing is another one I didn't know -- I love it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Agree again. It's time to look into them! I think this principle should be applied to every thing in life (including the news) we take for granted, or have been indoctrinated with. As Paul said, "Test all things ..." (I Thess 5.21)

All of them. Every of them. All the things. Every time.

Trapped · 12-21-2021, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Another one that comes to mind is that the Lord knocked Paul off his horse on the road to Damascus!

See, I had no idea! Love it!

Robert · 12-21-2021, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Another one that comes to mind is that the Lord knocked Paul off his horse on the road to Damascus!

And one from me. May be not the toughest...
(without check in Bible)
How Peter went out from jail? First thought?
I asked few saints...

Cal · 12-22-2021, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

While I agree, this logic doesn’t hold up to other Christian teachings such as the trinity.

So don't believe in the Trinity if that's what you really think. But there is much more evidence in the Bible for Trinity than becoming God. Much more.

Drake · 01-08-2022, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Bible has plenty to say concerning who the believers are and what they will be at the fulfillment of all things. The Bible uses many illustrations and metaphors to explain these realities. For example, believers are described as A. branches, B. the Body, and C. the Bride. In every one of these depictions, we can observe three important characteristics:
1. distinction between the believers and God
2. importance and significance of the relationship between the believers and God
3. a complete lack of implication or "revelation" that man becomes God (IL&NnotGH)

A. The Lord said, "I am the Vine you are the branches." 1.) The Lord strongly emphasizes the distinction between God and man, Vine and branches. Even to the extent that if the branches do not abide in the Vine they will wither, are cut off and burned in the fire. 2.) There is much to say and learn concerning the relationship between the Vine and the branches, including their oneness, the branches receiving life and life supply from the Vine, branches not being able to do nothing apart from the Vine and bearing fruit to glorify the Father. All these important points are based on the relationship between the branches and the Vine which highlights the distinction between the two. 3.) Never does the Lord teach directly or indirectly that the branches are "becoming the Vine." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that the Lord means that "the branches are becoming the Vine in life and nature but not in the Vine-head."

B. The Apostle Paul said, "So we who are many are one Body in Christ, and individually members one of another," and "But holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ." 1.) The description of the Body of Christ absolutely emphasizes the distinction between the members and the Head. The members grow into the Head, some members do not hold unto the Head, all things are subjected under the Head, and there are many different members with different functions directed by the Head. 2.)The use of the body as a metaphor is a great means to show the relationship between the members and the Head and between the many different members. Members are joined to one another and to the head, sharing the same blood flow and life. Members do not do things independently from the head, they are directed and controlled by the head. All members have an important function and they coordinate with each other to one degree or another for the purposes of the head. These vertical and horizontal relationships are crucial in the Bible and they underline the distinction not only between the Head and the members, but also between the members. 3.)Never does Paul teach directly or indirectly that the members are "becoming the Head." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that Paul means that "the members are becoming the Head in life and nature but not in the Head-head."

C.The Apostle John wrote, "Let us rejoice and exult, and let us give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." 1.) Surely there is a clear distinction between the Lamb and His wife, between the Husband and the Bride. Yes they are one, they are "one flesh," yet believers are completely distinct, each with their own personality, virtue and functions. 2.) This distinction is the foundation for the proper relationship where believers submit to their Head and fear their Husband. They love the Lord and allow Him to sanctify them and are diligent to get ready for their marriage to Him. 3.) Never does John write directly or indirectly that the wife is "becoming the Husband." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that John means that "the Bride is becoming the Husband in life and nature but not in the Husband-head."

When the Bible describes believers, it delineates a clear distinction between man and God. This distinction is the foundation for believers to have a proper relationship with God and with one another, in many different aspects. The Bible never teaches that man is becoming God (IL&NnotGH); that conclusion goes beyond Scripture, it blurs the distinction between man and God, Vine and branches, Head and Body, Husband and wife. And it undermines the proper relationship that believers should have with God: abiding in Him, depending and subsisting on Him, obeying and coordinating with Him, loving, submitting and fearing Him.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen. Rev. 22:21.

Thanks Raptor for your thorough and reasoned argument. I would agree largely with the statements as made..... except this fundamental one:

"3. a complete lack of implication or "revelation" that man becomes God (IL&NnotGH)"

Clarification: I do not believe man (the redeemed man, the regenerated believer) is becoming God in life and nature, rather that the believer already is God in life and nature. There is a growth aspect where the word "becoming" applies but for the examples used and in the context of our conversation the present tense "are" is a more accurate descriptor.

I highlight this point in red below only for emphasizing the distinction in my explanation of it.

So the three excellent examples you provided - the Vine, the Body, and the Bride - show that very thing -- God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. Let's look at them again:

- The Vine and Branches have the same life. They also have the same nature. When you walk through a beautiful vineyard does one think - "I see the vine and it has its own life and nature. I see branches, and they have a separate life and nature"? No, because the vine and the branches have exactly the same life and nature. They are difficult to distinguish too. That is because the vine is the source of life and nature to the branches. They are already the vine in life and nature. They are not the vine, for as you say they can be cut off, so they do not become the "vine-head". So it is with our "Vine-head" Christ and we the many branches. We already are the Vine in life and nature.

- Your head and your body have the same life. They also have the same nature. The verse you partially quoted is significant especially the ending. It says "For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ" (1 Cor 12:12). Christ has a Head and Christ has a Body. Together they are the Christ. Here the Bible reveals clearly that the Head (Christ) and the Body (Christ) have the same life and nature also. Your body will never become your head ("Head-head"), but still your body along with your head are (not becoming) the Raptor with the same life and nature.

- The Bride: According to the revelation of the Bible, Eve was made (built) out of Adam (Genesis 2:22-24) "Because out of man this one was taken". Therefore, Eve had Adam's life and nature because she was taken out of him. She does not become Adam ("Husband-head"), she is Adam in the sense of life and nature, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. The Bride is also taken out of Christ - Christ is in the Bride and the Bride is in Christ. Of course, they have the same life and nature! How could they not?

- In eternity future the Bride, the wife of the Lamb, is also a city (Revelation 21-9-10). The description there clearly shows that the bride, the city as a whole will be the Holy of Holies, the inner temple, and that God and the Lamb are its inner temple. Revelation 21:22. Which is it? Both!

The idea of "becoming" assumed in your argument clouds the divine revelation. Rather, the believers "are" God in life and nature. The Vine, the Christ (Head+Body), and the Bride/City all show the great revelation that is God's eternal purpose - God became a man so that man might become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

He did become a man, and by His accomplishments and through His complete salvation every regenerated believer becomes God in life and nature the moment he/she believes. Now they are.

Thanks again for your sharing your insight and point of view,
Drake

Zezima · 01-08-2022, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Putting the spirit in man is not the same as man becoming God.

Revisiting this thread. What does it mean?

Nell · 01-08-2022, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zezima

Revisiting this thread. What does it mean?

IMHO, It may mean going back to the same topic, one more time, and expecting a different outcome. We have discussed this topic on this forum in multiple places with the same conclusion…no Biblical evidence for man becoming God. Just more word salad from…Drake, who has never made a salient scriptural case.

Nell

01-08-2022, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

IMHO, It may mean going back to the same topic, one more time, and expecting a different outcome. We have discussed this topic on this forum in multiple places with the same conclusion…no Biblical evidence for man becoming God. Just more word salad from…Drake, who has never made a salient scriptural case.

Nell

Poor Drake. Let’s shut this thread down.

Ohio · 01-08-2022, 07:56 PM

Drake: “Clarification: I do not believe man (the redeemed man, the regenerated believer) is becoming God in life and nature, rather that the believer already is God in life and nature.”

There are folks on this forum who question whether Jesus Christ is God, and now Drake shows up telling us that the Duck is already God.

Nell · 01-08-2022, 09:34 PM

Bringing this burning exchange from days of yore, to the top. #42+

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Drake,

Are you God? Was Witness Lee God when he died? When does a person ascend to being God? What should we call you?

N

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

N,

Those characterizations are blasphemous because you mean God in His Godhead. I wasn’t ambiguous about that. Read what I wrote.

Rather, you may refer to me as one of the many brothers of the Firstborn Son of God who, by His grace, received His life and nature.

How about you? Have you received God’s life and nature? Are you a brother of the Firstborn Son of God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

1. It wasn’t a “characterization”. It was a question.
2. You do not tell me what I mean.

Why teach “man becomes god”, only to revert to “Brothers of the Firstborn Son of God who, by His grace, received His life and nature.” If this is what you mean, why do you teach “man becomes god”, which is heresy.

Nell

Nell · 01-09-2022, 04:19 AM

Per Zezima’s request, this topic is closed.

Nell
Admin

UntoHim · 01-09-2022, 07:43 AM

There is actually no controversy over what Witness Lee taught from the very beginning of his "ministry" here in America. (emphasis provided)

“Christ is of two natures, the human and the divine, and we are the same: we are of the human nature, but covered with the divine. He is the God-man, and we are the God-men. He is the ark made of wood covered with gold, and we are the boards made of wood covered with gold. In number we are different, but in nature we are exactly the same.”
The All-Inclusive Christ, p.103

“God can say to His believers, ‘I am divine and human,’ and His believers can reply, ‘Praise You, Lord. You are divine and human, and we are human and divine’.”
The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, pp. 51-52

“My burden is to show you clearly that God’s economy and plan is to make Himself man and to make us, His created beings, ‘God,’ so that He is ‘man-ized’ and we are ‘God-ized.’ In the end, He and we, we and He, all become God-men.”
A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, p. 54
-

08-24-2021, 12:07 PM	#1
Zezima Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 361	Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Is there biblical evidence to support the notion of Gods economy is to make man the same as he in life and nature but not the god head? I ask because as I break free from the teachings of LSM I am realizing that I don’t see this in the Bible. We are clearly being made like God, but the same? Is this a doctrine worth keeping?

08-24-2021, 09:22 PM	#6
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? The second path I mentioned that came to mind is regarding "becoming God". Here is where the distinction between God (the Father) and His Son, Jesus, is important. What does the Bible say about us? It says: Romans 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, Romans 8:19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 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 John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, Galatians 4:4-7 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. Got it? The Bible doesn't say we are God, are becoming God, or will be God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. It says we are children of God, sons of God, the many brothers of the Son of God. That's who we are and who we will be. Not God. But His sons. Big difference. Yes, the Bible says we are partakers of the divine nature, but let's stick to that language then! What are we? Partakers of the divine nature. That's something different than "becoming God". Maybe partaking of the divine nature wasn't enough for Lee? Too bad. "Becoming God" goes way past what Scripture says. So I'm not going to say it. Remember, you don't become what you eat. Are any of us sitting here as chicken? Okra? Boston lobster? Fish tacos? No. What you take in becomes a part of you, keeps you alive, nourishes you, sustains you. You don't become it!! The Bible shows a lot of wonderful things about who we are in Christ - many of which I didn't touch on at all in this post. But Lee's doctrine on this subject can, in my digging into it and in my opinion, be tossed aside. Trapped

08-25-2021, 02:34 PM	#8
Zezima Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 361	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? If you’re born of something, don’t you have the nature of that said thing?

08-25-2021, 09:00 PM	#13
Zezima Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 361	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? This is all fascinating, and I agree. It's a very subtle jump to conclusion or inference. God's economy is one of the harder doctrines for me to shake. From what the word says, all things are being united in Christ (Eph 1:10) It's hard to grasp what that means, and Witness Lee's God's Economy fills that void. So what does it mean? If god' isn't making us the same as he in life & nature, what is he doing?

08-25-2021, 10:22 PM	#17
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? All this, by the way, perfectly matches what Paul says in Ephesians 4. Ephesians 4:14 That we may be no longer little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching in the sleight of men, in craftiness with a view to a system of error, I mean seriously. You asked one question about one teaching of Lee's, and to unpack and explain it so that it makes any sense at all, we have to trace it along and untangle one teaching after another that each one is hinged upon. This is a literal system of error. This is what the Bible means by that phrase. Lee's ministry was an overarching tapestry of teachings that had to be understood in the self-contained context of itself. Everything hinged on everything else, everything was built upon some other understanding, some other pillar, some other foundational teaching of his. No wonder people can't get out! No wonder they are forced to "get out of their mind" to handle trying to untangle it all! We had to deal with dispensing, then our status in relation to God, then a life and nature concept, then adoption, then God's economy, all of which are huge intricate teachings of Lee's. But the answer to the first thing can't make sense unless you untangle all those stops along the way. And this is just sprung from one question! Thanks to UntoHim for providing a place where people can have a hope of working through Lee's system of error.

08-26-2021, 09:34 PM	#23
FigNewtonLove Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Hey Zezima, later I will give make a thread I think you will be interested in and write something in a more ideal and professional manner. As for your question, I am quite surprised you are not the basic principles of how Lee defines "Gods Economy". In truth school did they go in detail in Lee beliefs "God Economy". Also, I would be careful in your thought process. At this point it seems you are even familiar with the basic principles of "Gods Economy" yet you are at the same time convinced at Lee "God Economy" is as you state- " Fills that void". The Lords Recovery has a habit of making members blindly follow their doctrine regardless of if there is a legitimate explanation or backing of their teachings. Gods Economy in simple terms is- The living expression of God as the body of Christ. Basically, the idea here is that the purpose of believers is to be joined together in unity to live and abide in Christ Jesus and truly be the image God wanted man to be. Lee would use words like "Corporate body" or "Organic and Intrinsic" but its just lofty language aim to distract you of its lack of substance or expansion of its applications. This idea or principle of "living" Christ is a fundamental of the Christian faith. Lee would go into hyperbole and saying something along the lines of "Christians today only think that they are saved and don't value the idea of living and expressing Christ". This is not true and there are numerous people out there who have every intention of living and expressing God. In fact, the word of God is our guide on how to and when we reject it, there are severe consequences, and the fruits start to arise. Many people have left the LR because they realized either through the storms, schisms, or their experience in their locality; expressing and abiding in God was either at a minimum insufficient or grossly rejected. I am still waiting for my account to be registered. I also changed my mind; I want my name to be "FigNewtonLove" (beautiful name Once I have an account, I will properly critique LR doctrine in a suitable manner. Hopefully this post gets through, and my account is made.

08-26-2021, 11:06 PM	#24
FigNewtonWarrior Member Join Date: Aug 2021 Posts: 6	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Yay I got my account made. I guess FigNewtonWarrior was more humorous Made some typos on my previous post as an unregistered user, here are the corrections. 1. "Hey Zezima, later I will give make a thread" Corrected- take out the word "give" 2. "I am quite surprised you are not the basic principles of how Lee defines "Gods Economy". Corrected- not aware of the basic principles 3. "In truth school did they go in detail in Lee beliefs "God Economy". Corrected/revised- of Lee definition of Gods Economy Will definitely work on using Microsoft Word and proof reading before I post!

08-27-2021, 01:38 AM	#26
FigNewtonWarrior Member Join Date: Aug 2021 Posts: 6	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Hey Trapped! I simply did a very basic paraphrase of how Lee and LSM would definite. I didn't feel like going on the Living Stream Ministry to copy and paste when I made that post and just made a clearer definition. Lee Verbatim- 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." My Paraphrase- Gods Economy in simple terms is- The living expression of God as the body of Christ. Basically, the idea here is that the purpose of believers is to be joined together in unity to live and abide in Christ Jesus and truly be the image God wanted man to be. Ehhhh, Ill say I did a pretty good job (not perfect) of getting rid of all the fluffy language and making the definition simple. Also there are various circumstances that the LR would utilize additional "definitions" to Gods economy. For example to a newcomer they would say "do you know your purpose in life"? Then after you give an answer they dont like they would correct you and say all the things about "corporate expression of God and being part of his economy yata yata. They throw around all these terms and phrases constantly and give slightly varying "definitions" with a very similar theme (expressing God). Overall they say they intend to express God but in practice, they are severely lacking due to rejecting lots of scripture that reveal how to do that.

09-01-2021, 03:49 PM	#37
FigNewtonWarrior Member Join Date: Aug 2021 Posts: 6	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Isaiah 43:10 10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

10-10-2021, 10:54 PM	#47
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Your claim (A) is that we have received His life and His nature. 1. Where does the Bible say we have the life of Christ? 2. Where does the Bible say we have received His nature? Col. 3:4 says Christ our life, Peter says we are partakers of the divine nature, Phillipians says we have the mind of Christ.

10-12-2021, 06:24 AM	#52
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? There are frankly many sections of scripture which gave ample context for the writer to introduce "we become God in life & nature". (For example, I John 3.1-3) Eventually I concluded that we must also be cognizant of what the Bible does not say. WL, using his "recovery" and "MOTA" themes, really felt like he was completing scripture for the Apostles. Via his exaggerated sense of self-worth, bordering on megalomania, he convinced himself that his own esoteric teachings were scripture. He alone was charged by God as His oracle to expose the failures and condemn the errors of the rest of the body of Christ. God had deputized him, and would honor everything WL taught, whether it was scriptural or not. WL used inference, like a run-on sentence, to develop his teaching "we become God in life & nature." Follow along with me: This infers that, and that infers the following, and thus it is perfectly clear that "we become God in life & nature," but not in the Godhead! There you have it! __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

10-12-2021, 12:45 PM	#54
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Sons don't have their father's life. They have their own life. And where's the mother's life in this whole analogy? What does it mean to have your father's "nature"? Does it just mean you are also a human being? Does it mean you have his disposition? Because father/son disposition similarity can vary widely. "A son has his father's life and nature" is one of those phrases that needs a whoooooooole lot more explanation. Trapped

10-12-2021, 01:36 PM	#55
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,617	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Yes, in one sense a person has their own life, but their father is the source, the initiator of their biological life. The father's and mother's genes come together and the offspring gets a mix. In my case, I completely got my body type from my dad, basically down to a fraction of an inch. And, even though he didn't really raise me, my wife says I have many mannerisms that look just like him . . . even a unique walk we share (which she thinks is a hoot). So I think that's a pretty good example of having my dad's life and nature. I'm predisposed, in many ways, to resemble him because of this life he passed to me. __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

10-12-2021, 03:41 PM	#57
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,617	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Yeah, I understand. One thing's for sure, we who believed were born again, not of corruptible seed. (1 Pet 1:23) But becoming God . . ? I think we're in agreement that's not to be found. __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

10-23-2021, 10:28 AM	#62
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? My old friend Drake, Please spare us the Local Church talking points...you know, the ones you guys use on "new ones" who have no idea of what is really taught and practiced. After all, most of us around here didn't just fall off the Local Church turnip truck last night ya know. Nice try. I guess I shouldn't blame you for trying...but since you're the main LC apologist around here, I think I'll blame you anyway Nobody has accused Witness Lee or his followers of teaching that believers are to be worshipped as God. That's a strawman and you know it. These absurd claims have been used for decades as a distraction and diversion away from the fact that Lee and his followers have taught a heretical view of God and of man, and of the true, biblical view of God's relationship with his children. Here are a few quotes that more closely represent what Witness Lee taught, and what his followers have believed for well over a half of a century now: "Thus, we are the sons of God, just like the only begotten Son of God." "By His death and resurrection, the Lord released Himself and imparted Himself into us so as to make us exactly the same as He is. He is the Son of God, and He has made us to be the sons of God. He has the life and the nature of God, and He has made us to have the life and the nature of God. He is the very expression and manifestation of God, and He has made us to be the expression and manifestation of God. Therefore, we have the same life, nature, and position that He has." "Hence, we have what He has, we are where He is, and we are exactly the same as He is. Life Study of John Message 48 "God can say to His believers, 'I am divine and human,' and His believers can reply, 'Praise You, Lord. You are divine and human, and we are human and divine.'" The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man pp. 51-52 "My burden is to show you clearly that God's economy and plan is to make Himself man and to make us, His created beings, 'God,' so that He is 'man-ized' and we are 'God-ized.' In the end, He and we, we and He, all become God-men. "We the believers are begotten of God. What is begotten of man is man, and what is begotten of God must be God. We are born of God; hence, in this sense, we are God." A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing pp. 53,54 (all emphasis added) - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

10-25-2021, 06:48 AM	#69
Raptor Member Join Date: Jun 2019 Posts: 414	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? The Bible describes believers as having God´s life and nature, yes. But it never goes beyond that to say man "*is God" in life and nature." I think this is overstrechting, not Biblical, pushing the meaning of words beyond what is necessary and leads to confusion and misrepresentation of the believers status and relationship with God. The word "God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to God Himself, to Deity. Even in the world, even among "unbelievers" the word "God" is commonly understood as refering to the supreme being, the Creator. Using the word "God" to describe believers is an unscriptural use. That's why LSM always has to attach the asterisk and add "in life and nature, but not in the Godhead", etc. etc. So why not just stick to what the Bible does say about who believers are? The Word refers to the fact that believers have God´s life and nature, yes, but the Bible multiple times identifies believers as "sons of God."* That is what is scriptural, not confusing, and that readily places a believer in the proper relationship to God as Creator and Father. We are sons of God, not need to try to change the use and meaning of the word "God", to describe believers, stripping it of Deity and leaving it only with divinity in order to avoid heresy and then have to add paragraphs of explanations about how what you really mean is in life and nature only and not in the Godhead, blah, blah, blah. Just stick to the Word, just like John said it, from the beginning to the end: But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God—children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. John 1:12-13. The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. Revelation 21:7.

11-18-2021, 05:33 PM	#77
Robert Member Join Date: Dec 2020 Posts: 278	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? With full respect to all what was said here. I heard recently good example of this kind problematic discussion. " I have accent wall in my room. This wall is red like tomato. In my refrigerator is tomato. So, supposedly this wall is also tomato?" Main problem with brother Witness Lee, (who has put together many things in very good teachings) was, that he wanted to find new words to describe spiritual reality. We should be faithful and use only biblical verses and don't go too far in mind and philosophy, which WL did. We can find many verses about likeness, sanctification, being perfected, Transformed into his image, etc. But!!! When he used this expression it sounds like heresy. I know all those verses he used to confirm it. And so what? We can just have those verses and enjoy them. As children of God we can grow, we can be similar to Him. I can even buy all his explanations about gaining this similarity, life , etc. But When it comes to banners or those statements- Big NO! BTW, banners is another topic.

11-19-2021, 07:58 AM	#78
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? I have life, but I am not life. I have God, but I am not God. Lee took the words "life" and "nature" and jumped to all kinds of conclusions that the Bible doesn't teach, like if you have life you "spontaneously, automatically" express the characteristics of that life. Well, it's not that simple. There is the matter of obedience. I don't express the characteristics of God until I obey the Spirit's leading. What is the "I" that has to obey the Spirit? It's not God. Throughout eternity we will always have to obey God. Take out obedience and there is no "I." Therefore, there will always be part of us that is not God. We will be filled with, surrounded by and immersed in God. But we will not be God, even in life and nature. We partake of God's life and nature, we are not God's life and nature. Another error of the "life and nature" argument is that somehow the Godhead can be separated from his life and nature. This is imposing the human view of these ideas onto God. God is his life. He is his nature. His Godhead inhabits both. There is no aspect of God that is not Godhead. To say otherwise is heresy. We cannot have God's life and nature without the Godhead coming along with it. So there will always be some distinction between us and God. Deification is a extrapolation from scripture that can seem to be feasible with a certain logic, but the logic is tenuous and given that the conclusion is outrageous, sound reason and prudence clearly say it should be laid aside. Lee did this often. The Minister of the Age, the Recovery, and the local ground are all examples of the kind of tenuous logic he employed. Again, the LR's basic premise is flawed, as expressed in their view that God's economy is the dispensing of himself into us--as if his whole plan is to get something into us. Actually God's economy is that through the Spirit we have a relationship with him and through that we gradually become more like him. But he always remains him and we always remain us.

11-19-2021, 09:29 AM	#81
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Another example of Lee's tenuous logic is his use of the words "transformation" and "metabolic." The Greek word in the Bible translated into our English "transform" is "metamorphoo." From which we get our English word "metamorphosis," which refers to bio-transformation. But the Greek word did not imply bio-transformation, but simple general transformation. But Lee assumed that the Greek word carried the English meaning, which it doesn't. From that he apparently assumed that since "metamorphoo" and "metabolic" both contain the prefix "meta," they must be related. Thus he went from a simple reference to transformation to a biotransformation to a metabolic process that produces such a bio-transformation. Throw in "life and nature" and you have the roots of his "life" doctrine. "Meta" means something that refers to itself. For example, a meta-essay is an essay about essays. Metaphysics means physics about physics, in other words the study of why existence is the way it is. Given his logic, it seems Lee thought it meant something about biology. Clearly our experience of the Spirit is a life experience, and the Bible makes this clear by references to eating, drinking, breathing and growth. But Lee took that basic premise and ran with it to make all kinds of assertions which the Bible doesn't teach, like "you are what you eat," all kinds of presumptions about the significance of the Body of Christ, and deification.

11-19-2021, 09:43 AM	#82
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Many of Lee's logic leaps might be true, but there is no basis to expect anyone to believe they are true. This is why they had to make him the Minister of the Age--to try to force people to believe what he said was true.

11-21-2021, 08:44 AM	#89
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,075	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Trapped >"I asked you to explain this a while back, so I feel like I have the OK to respond to this post even though you directed it to Raptor who also asked you to explain this. Like I said, I have the ability to respond as if I hold the viewpoint that God Himself became a man, that God is Triune, etc.... and I will respond from that viewpoint (the one you espoused in this post)." Trapped, please feel free to respond. Of course you have the OK. I addressed my comments to Raptor because he is the one who is holding a scriptural dialogue. Also, in this note because I assume the basic article of the Christian faith concerning the Deity of the Lord Jesus then I simply mean any objections about that should be taken up in the Trinity thread where it is being discussed extensively. I'm also willing to engage Raptor because thus far he has refrained from snarky non-sequitur arguments. We may not agree in the end (but who knows, he makes compelling arguments), yet at least the reader will be presented with both sides of the argument from a scriptural point of view and can decide for themselves whether there is biblical evidence for man becoming God in life and nature. Trapped> "Okay then, if this is the same opposing mechanism by which God became a man, then what you are saying is that in order for God to become a man, man had to communicate some communicable attributes to God." Trapped, I did not say this at all. I read your post 2.5 times and this is where the train of your argument jumped the tracks. So we'd best return to the Scripture as Robert exhorts. John 1:1, 14 says that God, the eternal Word, the Only-Begotten was incarnated to be a man. Incarnation did not affect what God is in His eternal essence. In some way according to His transcendence and otherness, He made it work. Perhaps one day we'll understand it but until that day ants will merely speculate with each other how humans can ride bikes. Since we both agree for this dialogue that Jesus is the incarnated God, the eternal Word made flesh, the Only-Begotten Son of God of the Divine Trinity, then we should be in complete agreement that incarnation did not affect His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, or otherness. Are we in agreement on that? Drake

12-16-2021, 11:40 PM	#96
Raptor Member Join Date: Jun 2019 Posts: 414	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? The Bible has plenty to say concerning who the believers are and what they will be at the fulfillment of all things. The Bible uses many illustrations and metaphors to explain these realities. For example, believers are described as A. branches, B. the Body, and C. the Bride. In every one of these depictions, we can observe three important characteristics: 1. distinction between the believers and God 2. importance and significance of the relationship between the believers and God 3. a complete lack of implication or "revelation" that man becomes God (IL&NnotGH) A. The Lord said, "I am the Vine* you are the branches."* 1.) The Lord strongly emphasizes the distinction between God and man, Vine and branches. Even to the extent that if the branches do not abide in the Vine they will wither, are cut off and burned in the fire. 2.) There is much to say and learn concerning the relationship between the Vine and the branches, including their oneness, the branches receiving life and life supply from the Vine, branches not being able to do nothing apart from the Vine and bearing fruit to glorify the Father. All these important points are based on the relationship between the branches and the Vine which highlights the distinction between the two. 3.) Never does the Lord teach directly or indirectly that the branches are "becoming the Vine." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that the Lord means that "the branches are becoming the Vine in life and nature but not in the Vine-head." B. The Apostle Paul said, "So we who are many are one Body in Christ, and individually members* one of another," and "But holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ." 1.)* The description of the Body of Christ absolutely emphasizes the distinction between the members and the Head. The members grow into the Head, some members do not hold unto the Head, all things are subjected under the Head, and there are many different members with different functions directed by the Head. 2.)The use of the body as a metaphor is a great means to show the relationship between the members and the Head and between the many different members. Members are joined to one another and to the head, sharing the same blood flow and life. Members do not do things independently from the head, they are directed and controlled by the head. All members have an important function and they coordinate with each other to one degree or another for the purposes of the head. These vertical and horizontal relationships are crucial in the Bible and they underline the distinction not only between the Head and the members, but also between the members. 3.)Never does Paul teach directly or indirectly that the members are "becoming the Head." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; *you cannot reasonably conclude that Paul means that "the members are becoming the Head in life and nature but not in the* Head-head." C.The Apostle John wrote, "Let us rejoice and exult, and let us give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." 1.) Surely there is a clear distinction between the Lamb and His wife, between the Husband and the Bride. Yes they are one, they are "one flesh," yet believers are completely distinct, each with their own personality, virtue and functions. 2.) This distinction is the foundation for the proper relationship where believers submit to their Head and fear their Husband. They love the Lord and allow Him to sanctify them and are diligent to get ready for their marriage to Him. 3.) Never does John write directly or indirectly that the wife is "becoming the Husband." That is outside of the scope of the truth in these verses; you cannot reasonably conclude that John means that "the Bride is becoming the Husband in life and nature but not in the Husband-head." When the Bible describes believers, it delineates a clear distinction between man and God. This distinction is the foundation for believers to have a proper relationship with God and with one another, in many different aspects. The Bible never teaches that man is becoming God (IL&NnotGH); that conclusion goes beyond Scripture, it blurs the distinction between man and God, Vine and branches, Head and Body, Husband and wife. And it undermines the proper relationship that believers should have with God: abiding in Him, depending and subsisting on Him, obeying and coordinating with Him, loving, submitting and fearing Him. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.** Rev. 22:21. Last edited by Raptor; 12-17-2021 at 07:45 AM.

12-17-2021, 02:05 PM	#98
Robert Member Join Date: Dec 2020 Posts: 278	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Whatever we call ourselves or what happen in us, this is not small thing in that universe, that God Himself decided to share His spirit with us.Don't You think so? Ez 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

12-18-2021, 07:58 AM	#100
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? People can argue all day and night that man becomes God. But unless they can point out to me where the Bible explicitly says it beyond the shadow of doubt, I'm not going to believe it. So yak all day about it if you want. Unless you come up with a better argument than you have, I ain't buyin'.

01-08-2022, 07:56 PM	#119
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Drake: “Clarification: I do not believe man (the redeemed man, the regenerated believer) is becoming God in life and nature, rather that the believer already is God in life and nature.” There are folks on this forum who question whether Jesus Christ is God, and now Drake shows up telling us that the Duck is already God. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

01-09-2022, 04:19 AM	#121
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,100	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? Per Zezima’s request, this topic is closed. Nell Admin

01-09-2022, 07:43 AM	#122
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Re: Biblical evidence for becoming God in life & nature? There is actually no controversy over what Witness Lee taught from the very beginning of his "ministry" here in America. (emphasis provided) “Christ is of two natures, the human and the divine, and we are the same: we are of the human nature, but covered with the divine. He is the God-man, and we are the God-men. He is the ark made of wood covered with gold, and we are the boards made of wood covered with gold. In number we are different, but in nature we are exactly the same.” The All-Inclusive Christ, p.103 “God can say to His believers, ‘I am divine and human,’ and His believers can reply, ‘Praise You, Lord. You are divine and human, and we are human and divine’.” The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, pp. 51-52 “My burden is to show you clearly that God’s economy and plan is to make Himself man and to make us, His created beings, ‘God,’ so that He is ‘man-ized’ and we are ‘God-ized.’ In the end, He and we, we and He, all become God-men.” A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing, p. 54 - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11