Posted by Author Unknown, et al on 4/5/2001, 3:16 pm

Posted by Author Unknown on 3/19/2001, 1:15 pm For now I have stopped penning my second book, “The Hallmark of Christianity Falls Short of Legitimacy.” I will start on it again in five years. When I was last working on it I had read the entire New Testament and made a note of all the Scripture that speak of Christ’s resurrection. This subject is mentioned repeatedly in Scripture—the Bible makes a big deal out of Jesus’ Resurrection. I have never understood how the resurrection of Jesus according to the Scriptures fits within the framework of the Trinity. Is the Second Person now a resurrected man? If he is, then is the Son still of the same substance as the other two persons? And what kind of example did this Second person leave us that we should follow him? Was I also equal to God in substance and power before my birth? My mind wobbles at the conclusions drawn by the words of Paul cast in a Trinitarian light. Author Unknown ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/19/2001, 3:51 pm , in reply to "The Trinity and Christ's Resurrection" A.U., You ask, Is the Second Person now a resurrected man? If he is, then is the Son still of the same substance as the other two persons? As I understand it, trinitarian doctrine follows Paul (in Philipians 2) in depicting Christ as having the nature of both God and man ever since the incarnation. That is, the person we now know as Jesus, already having the divine nature, took on human nature in his conception and birth, and has never been without both natures since that time. It was a man of combined human and divine nature that died, and a man of combined human and divine nature that was resurrected and now lives forever. So the answer to both of your questions is "yes." But one must remember in the first case that he is also God, and in the second case that he is also man. He is both man and God, and some things are true of only one nature or the other. You also ask And what kind of example did this Second person leave us that we should follow him? Was I also equal to God in substance and power before my birth? He left us an example of humility and obedience. From what scriptures have you formed the idea that he must be precisely identical to us in order for that example to be valid? (We already know that we can never be precisely like him, for of course we were not conceived in the absence of a physical human act, and through the intervention of the Father and the Holy Spirit, like he was. Right from the start our origin is different, so our nautre cannot be precisely the same as his anyway.) But if you are thinking of publishing a book on this subject, it would be best not to rely on answers given by respondents like myself on Internet message boards, and instead go to works written by the real trinitarian teachers. The work I mentioned in a reply below to David Sandoval, The Person of Christ by Donald Macleod, would be a good one. In my own experience, reading actual trinitarian literature (instead of relying on the Chapel's picture of trinitarian doctrine) was a real eye-opener. At least, scholarly Protestant literature is incredibly thorough from a scriptural standpoint, and is not in the least hesitant to answer questions like yours. Speaking only for myself, while at the Chapel I had a distorted view of what trinitarian teaching was like, and was actually mistaken about some details of what they teach. This is much to my discredit, since I had been raised a trinitarian believer. However, never having questioned it much, I never bothered to gain much familiarity with the details of the doctrine, or with its scriptural underpinnings. In the last year or so, having seriously investigated the sources, scriptural support, and history of both doctrines (Oneness and Trinitarian), I can't help but see much of Chapel's teaching on the subject as a caricature of the real issues. For example, from the Chapel I had the impression that Trinitarians taught that Jesus was God because it was God the Son that “dwelt in him.” However, this is a misleading and inaccurate statement of Trinitarian doctrine. Trinitarians actually teach that the reason for Christ's deity is found not in a person of deity “dwelling in” him, but is because he was God by nature (as well as being man by nature). That is, it was not a person that “dwelled in him,” but an essence or nature. And of course the word chosen in Colossians 2:9 (theotes, “Godhead,” or “God-essence,” as even the Chapel sometimes rendered the word; instead of theos, “God”) clearly supports this. (Trinitarians do indeed teach that the Father is in the Son, but they also point out that the Son is in the Father, and that therefore such statements do not mean the literal “dwelling” of one person inside of the other.) I'm not saying that you are necessarily guilty of such misunderstandings of trinitarian doctrine, but am only emphasizing that if you want an authoritive account of something, it's best to go to the source instead of relying on answers from men in the street (like me), so to speak. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn ---------- Posted by Anon.II on 3/19/2001, 3:53 pm , in reply to "The Trinity and Christ's Resurrection" Your question: "Is the Second Person now a resurrected man? If he is, then is the Son still of the same substance as the other two persons?" Is one of the good questions that such a doctrine generates, and demonstrates how this doctrine makes it difficult for even the educated to grasp. Oneness understanding is unique in that it is not only seen in the depths of scriptures but has a surface understanding that reaches even the unlearned. We see that it was Christ's humanity that died on the cross, but Trinitarians believe that the 2nd person of the Trinity died on the cross along with the man. Recently, on this web page, the personhood of Christ has evolved in the Trinitarian discussions to mean that Christ is a person that is both human and divine, when just weeks before it was stated that Christ was not a human person at all. The form of Trinitarianism that is being offered on this web site strays from Orthodox teaching, as I have found from others sources that the doctrine of the Trinity does believe that Jesus was a human person and God the Son is believed to be a seperate divine person. Your other question: "And what kind of example did this Second person leave us that we should follow him? Was I also equal to God in substance and power before my birth?" According to Orthodoxy, the human person of Christ, sets the example, much the same as Oneness teaching believes, however; your question again illustrates how much of our discussion here evokes such convoluted logic. I have been accused of mis-representing the Trinitarian position, but check it out for yourself and you'll see that Orthodoxy Trinitarianism is different than what we've heard here. ---------- Please keep in mind... Posted by Steve B. on 3/19/2001, 4:39 pm , in reply to "Re: The Trinity and Christ's Resurrection" ...that this perception of trinitarian doctrine is from one who also perceives the Chapel as "still going strong." In my opinion, there is a strong element of distortion present in the way this person perceives things. And it is still my opinion that if you don't want to look foolish when you publish your book about the Trinity, you should deal with what the teachers from trinitarian churches have written, just as you should deal with what Don and the Chapel teachers really taught when writing about the Chapel's doctrines. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Anon.II on 3/19/2001, 11:25 pm , in reply to "Please keep in mind..." That this is a person that believes that Oneness is cultish, and is threatened by the survival of the Chapel in any form, especially in the hearts of those, who received many balanced teachings that were taught there, in particular, the Oneness of Jesus Christ. I, and many others have chosen to not throw the baby out with the bath water. (Leave it to Steve to not recognize a metaphor, when he can use it as a weapon of condescension against another.)