Posted by A2 on 4/6/2001, 4:46 pm

For the record, my answer is "Yes" Posted by Steve B. on 3/20/2001, 10:20 am , in reply to "For the record, Does the bible teach that Jesus Christ was both a human and divine person?" A2, You write As we continue, WE MUST REMEMBER that Steve believes that the PERSON OF GOD THE SON is the pre-incarnate part of Jesus, not the man or human nature we know as Christ. This is a mischaracterization of not only of what I believe, but also of trinitarian teaching about the scriptural revelation of Jesus. Jesus himself tells us that to know him is to know the Father. But you presume to tell us that in knowing Jesus, we know “a man or human nature.” To me, this is very near the crux of the matter, and why I think the issue is so important. You have inadvertantly confirmed the truth of my claim that the core error of the Chapel's Oneness doctrine concerns the nature of our relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. In knowing Christ, I do not believe I know “a man or human nature,” but God himself. I believe, following things I've repeatedly shown in the scriptures, that I know someone who was by very nature God before he was made in the likeness of men not only for our example but also for our salvation. As for the rest of your posting, I do confess that I continue to find your reasoning about the scriptures (particularily Philippians 2) very hard to follow. Perhaps that is indeed due to a deficiency in my own spiritual perception or intellectual abilities, but I have to live my life according to what I think is the evident meaning of the scriptures, not what you think is their meaning. Additionally, you continue to operate on caricatures of "what Trinitarians believe," and as a result I find myself again faced with such a lengthy task of correcting a lot of wild misinterpretations of what I myself have said, as well as what the official Trinitarian position is, that it would indeed be impractical to attempt a complete reply. But to take one example, you write The Trinity doctrine does teach that Jesus had a human personage separate from God the son, and that both died on the cross. Could you be troubled to cite the source (or sources) from which you get this idea? Maybe I have indeed completely missed an aspect of Trinitarian teaching that I should know about, and which would shoot down my perception that trinitarian doctrine is so far the best interpretation I've encountered of what the Bible says about God and about Jesus. But as it stands, I find your statement to be an almost laughable misrepresentation of the actual Trinitarian teaching I know about—to take two examples, in the books The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White and The Person of Christ by Donald Macleod that I have referred to several times here. If your case against the Trinity is so powerful, could you do me the favor of taking passages from those books and showing us where they labor under these mistaken ideas? These are the books from which I myself have most recently got my ideas about Trinitarian doctrine, and if I've misunderstood them and hence "strayed from orthodox Trinitarian teaching," you now have a golden opportunity to really finish me off. And, while I'm on the subject of sources, since I'm not afraid to say where I'm getting my ideas about “orthodox” Trinitarian doctrine (from which I've supposedly strayed in my postings), can you say where you're getting your own ideas? The only references I can remember you citing are unnamed Trinitarian friends of whom you've asked a few questions. That's hardly a convincing source for the sort of unanswerable “studies” you wish us to believe you have just presented. But more importantly, you continue to labor under the false impression that I am here to blame the Chapel for something. Because my wife and I began to withdraw ourselves, based on what we felt were checks given by the Holy Spirit, from active involvement in the practices and teaching of the Chapel long before its collapse, we were not hurt by its end. (And also because we both had strong foundations in other churches before we joined the Chapel. Trinitarian churches, by the way.) I feel there is nothing wrong with now seeking, through prayer and study of the scriptures, the reason for those checks. In that study, I have had to admit that the picture of God and our relationship to him that I have seen emerging more and more from the Scriptures is the same as the picture given by trinitarian theology, and that the Chapel was therefore wrong in the things it taught about our relationship to Jesus. If your interpret that as “blame,” that makes me think...well, speaking frankly, it (along with a few other things you've said) makes me think that you must still be following Don Barnett at COA, and are desperately trying to find ways to deflect some pretty obvious implications about the results of his teaching at the Chapel. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Re: For the record, Does the bible teach that Jesus Christ was both a human and divine person? No! Posted by Anon.II on 3/20/2001, 1:02 pm , in reply to "For the record, Does the bible teach that Jesus Christ was both a human and divine person?" From Steve’s comments: As we continue, WE MUST REMEMBER that Steve believes that the PERSON OF GOD THE SON is the pre-incarnate part of Jesus, not the man or human nature we know as Christ.(from Anon.II) “This is a mischaracterization of not only of what I believe, but also of trinitarian teaching about the scriptural revelation of Jesus. Jesus himself tells us that to know him is to know the Father. But you presume to tell us that in knowing Jesus, we know “a man or human nature.” To me, this is very near the crux of the matter, and why I think the issue is so important. You have inadvertantly confirmed the truth of my claim that the core error of the Chapel's Oneness doctrine concerns the nature of our relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. In knowing Christ, I do not believe I know “a man or human nature,” but God himself. I believe, following things I've repeatedly shown in the scriptures, that I know someone who was by very nature God before he was made in the likeness of men not only for our example but also for our salvation.” It is PRECISELY my point that this is a mischaracterization of orthodox Trinitarianism. Does Steve indicate HOW the wording misrepresents his assertions? No, but instead changes to another point of argument that illustrates he does in fact believe what I said. He knowingly misrepresents the Oneness position by saying that when we know Christ’s human person that we are not knowing the Father that is one with Christ. He knows the Oneness position, but yet again, he uses an ad hominem approach to color our beliefs as contrary to knowing Jesus as the Father. Steve has inadvertently confirmed the truth of my claim that denies the full humanity of Jesus Christ. In knowing Christ, I do believe I know “a man or human nature” along with the fullness of deity. That is who Jesus is, fully God and fully man. We see that knowing Jesus, after His human nature is unacceptable to Steve, but God’s word says that the Father has prepared our very salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, both his human and divine nature. The burden of proof for the claims Steve gives and the sources for his “PERSON that is both human and divine” assertion (especially after his previous assertion that Jesus did not have a human personage at all), have not been given as Steve had said: “since I’m not afraid to say where I’m getting my ideas about “orthodox’ Trinitarian doctrine”. Challenging me to read his source of reference is just ludicrous. He has the book; can’t he supply his own support? I’m actually not trying to shoot down Steve’s perceptions, as he notes, but rather support for the perceptions of the Oneness doctrine by offering, for the record, correct information from both orthodoxy and the Oneness doctrine. I find it interesting that Steve sees this as competitiveness. However, he should allow us the same freedoms to believe as we do, that the Oneness view of God’s nature is the better understanding over Trinitarianism. Since he says this is for his benefit only, it seems almost like we're his guinea pigs for testing his arguments against, and any objections are not worth anything more than an ad hominem dismissal. Oh, and yes, I do call Blaming Oneness for spiritual connections laying "blame". Actually, as I see it, why get riled at all. Everyone on this site is free to just deal with the crux of what others assert, without addressing the other. If anyone thinks I’m ridiculous, or laughably misrepresenting something, then give a proper representation, and let each man be persuaded in his own hearts. Why the ad hominems?