Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
KSA, I don't understand this kind of theology, sorry. Lee didn't do a good job explaining it to me. No one has, so I suspect either I'm dull or it doesn't matter too much. I probably just haven't 'got it' yet.
|
Okay, let me state my reasons for starting this thread. One of the major accusation against LC is that of modalism. However, I found out that those who set this accusation do not really know theology well. My discussion at the Bereans proved it. When we touch this matter two things usually come up: 1) Is Witness Lee's theology scriptural? 2) Is Witness Lee's theology "orthodox" i.e. in accordance with historical Christian faith. At the beginning of this thread I stated that Witness Lee's view of incarnation is not "orthodox" - he taught that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Trinity, when "orthodox" or "historical" approach is that Christ was the incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity - the Son. Now we have to face a question: which position is scriptural? And is it important? If not, why? If yes, why?
Ohio, if this thread doesn't take off well, I will share some of my thoughts. But I will wait a bit longer, maybe someone will pick this topic up.
SpeakersCorner, how about you?
