I always have been and still today now remain
very comfortable with the idea that the moderator of a public forum may one day conspire with others, likeminded or not, to have me burned at the stake for rejecting the historical prescribed dogma of Roman Catholicsm and all of its many multiplied descendents and instead accepting each and every one of Lee's teachings on the topic of the Trinity where they are plainly founded on the Bible.
Therefore, I'd propose a shift in this inquiry:
We should concern ourselves with the question of whether Lee's teachings are in conformity with the
scriptures and also whether the "common teachings" themselves are in conformity with the
scriptures.
My impression is that the dusty old doctrines and creeds of the so-called "Church" are of little to no value in living the reality of the Christian life. If you think they are, then don't call me a Christian if that makes you happy. It is no problem to be different from all the world if all the world is simply wrong.
Although I'd concede that Lee got a little loose sometimes in his speaking and that looseness caused him trouble in terms of valid criticism, the ridiculous charges of heresy should be at last put to rest by serious review and comment outside of the "Affirmation and Critique" blind defense of Lee's doctrine.
In other words, we can look at issues surrounding "Persons" and "hypostases" and "co-exist and co-inhere" until the Lord returns but that wouldn't really benefit anyone and none of that is fundamentally the Bible anyway. And I for one have absolutely no interest in the topic.
Garbage from Lee is no better or worse than garbage from Augustine.
Like I said. Kindle the fires.
Otherwise, this is my sole contribution:
Yes, Lee taught differently from the "common teachings."
Definitely, yes.