[KSA]

Originally Posted by YP0534

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.

That is exactly what I proposed. To compare with the Scriptures! I mentioned "common teaching" for a certain reason. On the one hand, LC and BB claim that their teaching on God is within Orthodoxy and therefore deny accusations in heresy. On the other hand, they claim that the Orthodox view is deficient, and say that their teaching is according to the "pure Word". So before comparing LC's teachings on God with Scripture, I thought it would be profitable to see where their teachings stand regarding the common teachings in Christianity. As I have stated in my first point offered for discussion, Witness Lee differed from Christianity in his belief that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Triune God, when other Christians commonly teach that Christ was the incarnation of the second Person of Trinity - the Son. Now we have to find out what teaching is scriptural. I would suggest that we should go point by point. Let this point be the first. We can come to other points - like modalism - later. So what are your thoughts regarding this point?

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.

I wouldn't brush creeds away so quickly. I agree that creeds are not the Word of God and are not infallible. We base our faith on the Word of God, not the creeds. However, creeds express certain stages of the church development. It is good to take them into consideration and not act too independently. We do not exist in vacuum. We have 2000 years of church history - and this history is not worthless - we may learn a lot from history, both from its achievements and its failures.

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.

I somewhat agree with you here, but not fully. Our Christian life hinges upon our knowledge of God. Therefore, we should try to know God both spiritually and intellectually. We will never get the full answers, but we will grow in the knowledge of the Lord. And the matter of hypostasis is actually quite important, when we come to it. So I hope in the future to ignite your interest in this topic.