[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

My instinct told me I should have ignored your first leading question. I prefer a dialog. If you have a specific writing you wish to discuss I will be happy to engage you. If the teaching in question is not related to this thread then with the permission of the host of this site you may open another thread and depending on the topic I may join you.

I'm not sure it is worth pressing the point.

When asked about Lee and infallibility, you are quick to assert that he is not infallible. But from your actual statements and positions, it would seem that you have found no actual reasons to question anything Lee ever said or did. That makes your assertion of "fallible" to be little more than theoretical. In practice you have found him to be entirely accurate and trustworthy to have spoken precisely what God is saying in all cases.

I will declare plainly that I find things about virtually every ministry, from large national and global ministries to the people who minister in various local churches (that's local church in the unadulterated sense of churches that are found locally). The minister at one place we have attended declares plainly that they stand as a bastion of strength to defend the propositions of a pretty by-the-book DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) version of "the truth." And while I find his preaching quite sound and refreshing, I cannot say that everything he says is entirely as I understand it. Further, I don't think that the DTS version of "the truth" is absolutely correct. And my son and daughter-in-law who both attended DTS would agree. I can give specifics if you would like.

But no matter how strongly I consider DTS theology to be either right, wrong, or in between, I do not sideline all other thought as if it is something to fear. In fact, it is the opening of other perspectives that I learned how wrong Lee actually is. How contrived his reading of scripture can be (and more often than just "at times").

But the LRC is frozen in place following the singular ministry of one (dead) man without even considering other ministries as at least supplementary. And please do not confuse arguing that Ron and Benson have their own ministries because theirs, at least at this point in time, are nothing more than rephrasing and restating Lee's. Except for certain very sectarian groups, you won't even find a severe limit on the range of ministries to be considered as you find in the LRC. Virtually no one out there is even suggesting that we should avoid all other ministries but theirs because those others are either redundant or wrong. Virtually all ministries understand themselves as little more than a part of the whole. Even Paul did not declare himself to be more than that.

But Lee did. (That Lee. He is soooo special. Even more special than Paul.)

In a favorite podcast (having nothing to do with the LRC or even theology), the author regularly quotes Thomas Jefferson:

Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I generally refrain from taking that approach, but there are times when I am tempted and on occasion do give in. This kind of "he's not infallible but no one has ever seen where it is true" position is running right up against that. It is entirely too contradictory to be sustained as rational. You would give yourself some credibility if you could actually say that you disagree with something Lee said, or agree that certain of his actions are not consistent with someone who would claim to be God's unique oracle.