Posted by A2 on 4/6/2001, 4:52 pm

Still more remarks for the record... Posted by Steve B. on 3/20/2001, 4:08 pm , in reply to "Re: For the record, Does the bible teach that Jesus Christ was both a human and divine person? No!" A2, As before, when reading your responses, I find myself in a maze of mis-statements so bizarre that I can't decide if I should take them seriously or not. I don't mean this to be polemical, it is just an honest description of how they make me feel. However, in the hopes that if I just keep speaking simply and truthfully about what I have observed, experienced, and learned, somebody will benefit by it, I will attempt to untangle some of the claims found in your latest posting. (And to be truthful, also because I have some time on my hands this afternoon and I enjoy writing). You write 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. This is rich. Let me explain why I think so. You said "...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." I said in reply (among other things) "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." Your reply to this is then (among other things) "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." How was my reply another point of argument? How could I have possibly replied any more directly? I specifically say "I do not believe" the things you wrote about my position, even using your very wording. Then I say what I do believe, and show how it is different from what you said. Now I read that I showed I “in fact believe” what you said. This is too crazy. This is Alice-in-Wonderland stuff. I may as well have replied, "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe," and I would have seen my words no less distorted in your reply. Since you insist that I mean what you think I mean instead of what I say I mean, I think we have reached a particularily fruitless point in the discussion. But we've been here before, have we not? Ah, well. Life is interesting. Let's see if we can find any more examples. What!? The very next sentence? You write [Steve] 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. A2, in a posting a few days ago, I reproduced words from Don's sermon series called "Fellowship with the Son of Man." In that sermon series, he referred repeatedly to our need to fellowship with the man Jesus, who is now glorified. Don repeatedly emphasized, claiming that specific scriptures supported his point, that “fellowship with Christ” refers not to his deity but to his humanity. So how am I “knowingly” misrepresenting Oneness doctrine? If Don wanted us to understand that this fellowship was really with the Father “through” Christ, or something to that effect, he certainly did a major job of choosing his words badly, for the cumulative effect that those words had on me, an avid Bible college student at the time and without any kind of agenda to misrepresent Oneness doctrine, was to give me the very deep conviction that God wanted us to have fellowship with Christ as man, not as God. Barbara's book, which I also quoted, also spoke of our “fellowship with the Son of Man” in those terms, and saw “spiritual unions” as the fulfillment of that fellowship. You need to remember that I am not on a vendetta against the Chapel. There is no need to kill it. The Chapel did a great job of that itself. It is already dead (both literally and metaphorically). I am trying to figure out why it killed itself. I have no motive for misrepresenting what it taught, because that would not serve my purpose of coming to grips with the effects its teaching has had on my life. So whenever I talk about Oneness doctrine I am not distorting it, because I am talking about things I myself once believed. It is in my own best interest to deal with the teaching as accurately as possible. The representation I am giving of the Chapel's Oneness doctrine is the knowledge I had of it after graduating from its Bible college, and I now refer to it by quoting the Chapel's own materials and the notes I made at the time, so if you find ‘misrepresentations’ in it, that speaks even more poorly of the job the Chapel did in teaching me what the Oneness doctrine was. You also write Challenging me to read his source of reference is just ludicrous. He has the book; can’t he supply his own support? We were talking about support for something you said about Trinitarian doctrine. I can't supply the support because it isn't there. That is my point. You think something is a trinitarian teaching, but I claim it is not. The ball is in your court. If you can take a trinitarian source and show me that the teaching is in fact there, you've smashed the ball back at me. If you can't, I've caught you flat-footed. You also write 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. Now it's my turn to label something as ludicrous. You're offering “correct information” from both orthodoxy and the Oneness doctrine? But you've just declined to show me where your ideas about the Trinity are coming from! How does that help me to see that your information is really the “correct information,” and that my own information is straying from it? Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Keith on 3/20/2001, 9:11 pm , in reply to "For the record, Does the bible teach that Jesus Christ was both a human and divine person?" I was ready to read and jump into this, than I changed my mind. But I guess I'll try to make a brief statement, not that anybody's listening anyway. Jesus is clearly a person that is distinct from his Father, Whom Jesus says is greater than Himself. Jesus acknowledged Duet 6:4 which emphatically states that God is one. This among other things show Jesus to be a human person aside from God. There is also indication that Divinity could be attributed to Jesus. Or is it attributed to Jesus' Father Who dwells in fullness in Jesus and Who highly exalted Jesus to His own glory? Divinity is playing a picture somehow. One simple fact that I will come back to time and time again, is the fact that throughout the O.T. God used singular pronouns to describe Himself 99% of the time. "He is God alone, He knows of no other" and so on. This is such a basic concept and so clearly denotes a singular Being. There is no reason whatsoever that God would take such a simple concept and confuse us with a mess like the Trinity. The Trinity seems to do away with many simple concepts so it can shoe horn itself into the Bible. Jesus has a God in heaven? why? All things are to be given up to the Father so that God can be all in all? This doesn't make sense to me in light of the Trinity. I've been learning to let the Bible speak for itself, I don't have to explain what I believe. I continually here ministers confirm what I believe the Bible teaches on this subject, Trinitarian ministers by the way. The truth is in many Christians hearts, just a little scrambled in their minds, I'm sure that includes me too to some extent. ---------- An observation... Posted by Steve B. on 3/21/2001, 8:33 am , in reply to "Re: For the record, Does the bible teach that Jesus Christ was both a human and divine person?" Keith, You write The truth is in many Christians hearts, just a little scrambled in their minds. This is what I've observed also, and the reason I cannot say even those who have rejected Jesus' deity (while still in some sense accepting him as Lord and Christ) are not Christians. Their lives in Christ are more genuine than their theologies about him, for in actual practice they treat Christ as God. They still worship Jesus, and this alone establishes his place as God in their lives, whether their theology lets them admit it fully or not. Sincerely, Steve