Quote:
Originally Posted by Acolyte4236
The above puts Hank in a very difficult position given his defense of the Local Church. His own Church doesn’t recognize the Local Church as a church in the first place. If he follows his own Church’s teaching, he has to say that the Local Church is not only materially heterodox (for the same reasons it says Confessional Protestantism is and for Local Church distinctives as well) but that the Local Church is not even a church. In sum, Hank has to say that the Witness Lee was fundamentally in error on doctrines the Orthodox Church teaches are essential and likewise Lee was wrong on what he thought were essential doctrines as well. So, is Hank’s church wrong on essentials? Is the Local Church wrong on essentials? Or is Hank’s cliché about essentials wrong? They simply cannot all be true. And this is why the position Hank attempts to carve out in the last chapter is not only heterodox by his own Church’s standards, but is incoherent. Hank therefore needs to decide whether he’s going to be an Orthodox Christian, and teach that, or something else.
|
(I can hardly believe I read this piece, as I don't normally go for reading such things. But I was rudely awakened this night by a dog on my face, and couldn't get back to sleep right away, so . . .) This part quoted above caught my interest a little. Yes, it would seem bro Hank has something of a dilemma here that may not be easily reconciled, especially if he wants to remain aligned with the Orthodox Church system. (I don't really know anything about the OC, so perhaps that's all fine with them.)
The other thing that was mildly interesting was the part about Lee's view on the mingling. I must say I don't see a real definitive case for saying Lee's views in the matter are all that much in error. This theologian or that theologian are always cited and in the end some compound word like "quasi-modalism" is used to try and explain why Lee is in left field. But this is much like theologians trying to corner a concise understanding and definition of the nature of our Triune God - I don't believe it can be done, and we will dance around and around trying to nail-down the issue until we see Jesus face to face (and perhaps even after that too). Paul calls things like this a "mystery" for a reason, and he uses that word right before he wrote Colossians 1:27,
"Christ in you, the hope of glory." Therefore arguing about whether we are "mingled" with God or not becomes something of a non sequitur for me.
Once again, that's my buck-two-ninety-eight for what it's worth. (and maybe, with that, I can get back to sleep again . . . hopefully)
>>>And Perry, I am not trying to disparage your work here. On the contrary I appreciate brothers like you who have the aptitude for such things - it's really just not my thing. Regardless,
thanks for doing the work on this, being on this forum and posting!<<<