Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomes
W. Lee denigrates theology and the creeds. He says, “The term theology is misleading. We have only the Bible; we do not have theology. The problems in Christianity began around the 2nd or 3rd century when the church fathers developed a theology from the Bible...On the one hand, the [Nicene] creed was written according to the New Testament...On the other hand, the creed was written according to the teachings of the church fathers.”169 We note that W. Lee distinguishes between theology and the Bible, saying, “We have only the Bible; we do not have theology.” His point is that a theological system can develop way beyond Scripture.
|
I thought this point Tomes made was very interesting. In the first place, it's very naive and arrogant of Lee to say he had no theology. Every interpretation of scripture is a theology. In fact, by claiming to have no theology, but rather only the "pure word", Lee is raising his theology to the level of the Bible. He is saying there is no difference between his teaching and the Bible, that they are effectively the same.
Now, we should all seek to get our theological beliefs in line with the Bible as much as possible. But by distinguishing between his ministry and "theology" Lee is attempting to elevate his teaching while denigrating all others. He is saying his is not only superior in the details, it is superior in nature. Once again, as pointed out many times before, Lee is employing
equivocation here to serve his purposes. Lee is saying effectively,
theology (that is, what everybody else teaches) is bad. But I don't teach theology. Of course he taught theology, just not an orthodox one.
But then Lee reverses. After denigrating creeds and councils and early church traditions, Lee appeals to them to support his deification doctrines. Isn't this hypocritical? Isn't some sort of explanation for the change of sentiment in order? But we don't get it.
It's clear Lee denigrated traditions because it served his purpose, and then appealed to them later for the same reason. So without some sort of explanation for the flip-flop I don't see much choice but to conclude he was an opportunist.
Further, Lee denigrated traditions and creeds because either they were incomplete or they went beyond the Bible. But every theology is incomplete, including his. Now by embracing deification he has gone beyond what is written. So he ends up doing the same thing he denigrated the early church for. This is basically what you get with Lee. He was a loose cannon in many ways.