[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

But boilerplate theology on the fringe of orthodoxy, or beyond it, especially on such matters as public debate over the construction of the trinity, doesn't seem to stand up to cost/benefit analysis. I think Paul would have said that. In fact, I think Paul did say that, in various ways at various times. "Let each one be convinced in his own mind," etc.

aron, I do fully agree with you about "theology on the fringe of orthodoxy". Life is WAY too short to contend over non-essentials. But I must tell you that non-essentials are exactly what the apostle Paul was talking about when he told the Romans "Let each one be convinced in his own mind". -He was talking about eating meat or not eating meat, or celebrating a certain holiday or not celebrating a certain holiday. He was not talking about anything that is essential to the Christian faith.

I think that any kind of debate/argument/discussion regarding the nature, character or actions of God by definition involves something that is essential to the Christian faith.

Witness Lee flat out claimed that "the Father was called the Son" (and by extension he claimed the Father became the Son). He also went further to claim that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, "became the Life-Giving Spirit" (and by extension he claimed that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit). These claims/teachings/doctrines involve the very nature of the Godhead, and thus they involve matters that touch the very foundational core of the Christian faith.

So, back to 1 Corinthians 15:45 we come.