Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
So what do we do when someone like Witness Lee comes along and says the Lord "illuminated him" to teach that the Son is the Father, and the Son became the Holy Spirit? Should we throw up our hands and just say "It's all a big mystery! Who knows! Lee's approach is as good as anyone else's!". Sorry my brother, but I don't trust man's personal "illuminations" any further than I could throw em.(and that includes mine) This is why our theology should be based in and upon the historical, orthodox teachings/interpretations. God is more than capable and willing to "illuminate" us within the bounds of the historical orthodoxy established since beginning.
But you're perfectly willing to be beholden to what Witness Lee's thinking was, right? What gives bro? Why the discrepancy?
|
This is not a binary thing - that is, either I'm one way or another. Again, and let me repeat myself, one more time, over and over, again & again - did I say let me repeat myself? (I think I did . . .) Here it is: As I have stated many times on here before, just because I'm not ALL in regarding everything "anti-Witness-Lee . . . throw-baby-out-with-the-dirty-bathwater" doesn't mean I'm necessarily pro WL! This attempt to repeatedly paint me in this way is a logical fallacy called a "straw man."
Straw man definition:
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
So I would ask, once again, that you not categorize me in that way - PLEASE! (or do you do it to just push my buttons, or is it a seeing of everything through anti-WL glasses?)
Now if my thinking is wrong here, and you are NOT inclined to heavily trust historical Christianity, please let me know. I don't want to be guilty of trying to present a "straw man fallacy" regarding you . . .