Criticisms of Witness Lee’s theosis typically focus on (1) the formula “become God in life and nature,” (2) perceived blurring of the Creator–creature and Trinity/creation distinctions, and (3) ecclesial rhetoric and practice; set against Torrance, critics often say Torrance safeguards classical boundaries more clearly.
## 1. Creator–creature distinction and “becoming God”
– Many evangelicals and Reformed critics argue that saying “man becomes God in life and nature” risks confusing Creator and creature, even with Lee’s repeated qualification “but not in the Godhead.”[1][2][3]
– The Open Letter lists statements like “we are the God‑men” and “in nature we are exactly the same” as appearing to “contradict or compromise essential doctrines” about God and man, and asks that they be withdrawn.[2]
– By contrast, Torrance’s theosis is consistently framed as participation by grace in God’s life through union with Christ, with an explicit insistence on a “gulf”—a real Creator–creature distinction that is never ontologically erased.[4][5][6]
## 2. Trinity and “four‑in‑one” language
– Critics also connect Lee’s theosis with his controversial Trinitarian formulations (e.g., “the Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit”; “the Triune God is now the four‑in‑one God” including the Body), seeing here a tendency toward modalism and an over‑identification of church and Trinity.[7][2]
– This leads to worries that deification, in his scheme, slides into the church effectively being absorbed into the Triune life in a way that weakens the irreducible otherness of God.[2]
– Torrance, although strongly emphasizing coinherence and union, is careful to uphold Nicene distinctions of persons and to avoid any suggestion that the church becomes a “fourth” of the Trinity; his theosis is participation in, not extension of, the Triune being.[5][6][8]
## 3. Semantic and pastoral risk
– Even sympathetic readers of Lee acknowledge that his “become God” language is rhetorically explosive and easily misunderstood, especially outside his own movement; critics argue a teacher is responsible not only for technical qualifications but for the pastoral effect of headlines.[1][2]
– Lee’s defenders appeal to the Eastern essence–energies distinction (we become God in energies, not essence) as a clarifying parallel, but critics reply that Lee never clearly installs that classical dogmatic framework, so the boundary lines remain opaque to ordinary believers.[9][1]
– With Torrance, the main criticisms run in the opposite direction: some say his ontological language is *too cautious* about traditional Eastern metaphysics and that his theosis could be developed further rather than being rhetorically overstated.[6][5]
## 4. Ecclesial and sociological concerns
– The Open Letter also ties Lee’s deification language to a high, exclusivist view of the “local churches” (e.g., the “four‑in‑one God” including the Body, denunciations of “Christendom”), suggesting that his theosis may underwrite an elevated ecclesial self‑understanding that delegitimizes other churches.[2]
– By comparison, Torrance’s theosis/ecclesiology is ecumenically oriented—he seeks a catholic, patristic consensus and does not claim that one particular movement is the unique locus of God’s deifying work.[8][10]
## 5. Internal responses and ongoing debate
– Local church apologists respond that Lee’s critics misrepresent him, stressing that he explicitly denies believers share Godhead or attributes and that his deification teaching is analogous to Eastern Orthodox “partaking of the divine nature.”[11][12][9]
– The Affirmation & Critique material insists there are “permanent boundaries to our deification” and that becoming God is strictly “in life and in nature…not in the Godhead,” but critics remain unconvinced that this is expressed with sufficient dogmatic clarity.[3][1]
## 6. In contrast with Torrance
– Torrance is also critiqued (e.g., by Habets) but chiefly for *underdeveloping* certain metaphysical aspects of theosis or for the implications of his ontological atonement—not for collapsing Creator/creature or Trinity/creation boundaries.[5][6]
– Set side by side, the common evangelical judgment is that Torrance offers a robust theotic soteriology while staying recognizably within Nicene and Reformed bounds, whereas Lee’s formulations are viewed as doctrinally ambiguous or dangerously overstated, despite the later clarifications his defenders provide.[6][1][5][2]
Sources
[1] ETS 2015: “In Life and Nature but Not in the Godhead” https://an-open-letter.org/en/
[2] Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the … http://www.open-letter.org
[3] [PDF] Becoming God – Affirmation & Critique https://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/
[4] The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Thomas F. Torrance https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[5] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Forsyth Torrance – By Myk Habets https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
[6] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance | Myk Habets https://www.taylorfrancis.com/
[7] Local Church controversies – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
[8] [PDF] T. F. Torrance as Missional Theologian – InterVarsity Press https://www.ivpress.com/Media/
[9] Addressing the Open Letter’s Concerns On the Nature of Humanity … https://www.equip.org/
[10] Thomas F. Torrance: Theology and mission in practice – In die Skriflig https://indieskriflig.org.za/
[11] Criticism of the Open Letter – Contending for the Faith https://contendingforthefaith.
[12] [PDF] “In Life and Nature but not in the Godhead”: Witness Lee’s … https://an-open-letter.org/
[13] A History of Our Responses to Criticism – Contending for the Faith https://contendingforthefaith.
[14] The False Gospel of Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministries https://contrast2.wordpress.
[15] Warning: Beware of “biblesforamerica” and the “Lord’s Recovery”. https://www.reddit.com/r/
[16] An Open Letter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee and “The … https://contendingforthefaith.
[17] Addressing the Open Letter’s Concerns: On the Nature of God (Part … https://www.equip.org/
[18] So ive been called a heretic for separating the 2 natures of Christ. https://www.facebook.com/
