Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
It seems this discussion is going around in circles. If it was just a 'terminology' issue, then it would have been as simple as WL making the effort to rephrase things. As we know, he didn't do that. Who in their right mind would purposely use terminology that was bound to be misunderstood?
WL speaks of a common association with the term deification. He knew how that term would be interpreted, yet he proceeded to use it anyways, claiming that everyone was somehow 'misunderstanding' him. It defies logic. It shows a lack of sincerity on his part. He wanted something that would 'shock' people. He wanted a teaching that he could claim for himself as 'unique'.
|
So you are arguing about how and why someone wants to define something, the terminology, not the doctrine itself. The doctrine itself has not changed or become heretical.