Posted by A2 on 4/6/2001, 5:46 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 3/22/2001, 9:27 pm , in reply to "The Council of Chalcedon" A2, You write Do you mean that because you “like to write” that we have to be patient with nagging? We are in fact rejecting your understanding, whether you think we are fully comprehending it or not. No—I mean that I myself am getting a lot of benefit out of putting things into words, and you may read them or not, as you please. In fact, I would hope that if you perceive my postings as nagging, you would stop reading them immediately. And I also get a lot of benefit from those who respond with honest, well thought-out postings of their own. If their response is a reasoned and articulate rejection, that pleases me just as much as agreement, and much more than slavish agreement would. In your latest posting, you take a description of the Definition of Chalcedon and make a claim concerning it. The description is as follows: ...after the Incarnation what was proper to each nature and substance in Christ remained intact and both were united in one person You claim is: This assertion by the CofC [Council of Chalcedon] is the same as Oneness, but the “one person” of Oneness is human, and the one person the Trinity is the 2nd person of God. So according to your claim, in Oneness teaching the two natures are united in a human person; but in trinitarian teaching, the two natures are united in the 2nd person of God. That is what necessarily follows from the words you wrote. Is that what you meant to say? You have further claimed that my position strays from “orthodox” Trinitarian teaching. You appear to have agreed that the Definition of Chalcedon is an acceptable source of “orthodox” trinitarian doctrine. Is that correct? My claim (that you say strays from orthodox trinitarian teaching) is that Jesus is both a human and divine person. If this claim does indeed differ from trinitarian doctrine, it would necessaritly have to be incompatible with the the statement you have made based on the Definition of Chalcedon that trinitarianism teaches two natures united in the 2nd person of God. Is this an accurate statement of the debate so far? If so, we have this situation— Me: Jesus is both a human and divine person. “Orthodox” Trinitarianism: The 2nd person of God unites in himself the two natures, human and divine. Your claim appears to be that the first statement is a significant deviation from the second. Now if you beg the question by saying that “Jesus” must necessarily refer only to a human person, then of course the first statement would represent not so much a deviation from the second, as an oxymoron. It wouldn't make sense to say a human person is both a human and divine person. But the problem is, I don't use words according to your definition of them, I use them (by the grace of God) according to what I think the scriptural definition of them is. And by that standard, I think Jesus is shown to be the Son of God, who has no beginning or end, who is the active, conscious Word of God, who was with God in the beginning, and who was God in the beginning. That is, in trinitarian terms, I think Jesus is the 2nd Person of God. In other words, an equivalent (and perhaps, in your eyes, a more accurate) statement of the situation is this— I say: The 2nd Person of God is both a human and divine person. Orthodox trinitarianism says (as before): The 2nd person of God unites in himself the two natures, human and divine. So now we are down to deciding if the predicate "is both a human and divine person" is substantially different from the predicate "unites in himself the two natures." Therefore I now ask, are you claiming that these phrases are incompatible descriptions? If not, what other basis is there for your claim that my position strays from orthodox trinitarianism? I still do not understand such a claim, so I can hardly even say whether we really disagree on that point or not. In summary, I still think the Chapel's Oneness doctrine seriously misled us by creating a Jesus with whom we could fellowship apart from his deity. Biblically speaking, I think it is necessary to see that Jesus is one person who is by nature both man and God, and that is one reason why abandoning trinitarian teaching on this point proved to be perilous. Jesus' deity is not due to God dwelling inside of him, but to a nature he possessed. Therefore one cannot attempt to fellowship with the glorified Son of Man as if he were a person that was not also God. God wants us to have fellowship with himself, not with another. The attempt to fellowship with a glorified man of our own imagination led to great spiritual harm. I believe that trinitarian teaching recognizes the same thing, and I am not conscious that I differ from it on this point. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Good morning. Posted by Anon.II on 3/23/2001, 8:10 am , in reply to "Re: The Council of Chalcedon" I'll have to take a rain check for a few days, as there has been a death in the family, but thanks for the questions, they're great, and I'll get back to you real soon. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/23/2001, 1:01 pm , in reply to "Good morning." A2, I'm sorry to hear of the death in your family, and will of course be glad to put our discussion on hold until a more convenient time. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Jesus apart from His Deity Posted by Dave Kenady on 3/23/2001, 9:10 am Message modified by board administrator 3/23/2001, 9:39 am "I still think the Chapel's Oneness doctrine seriously misled us by creating a Jesus with whom we could fellowship apart from his deity." Well Steve, in a roundabout way, you are helping me form my own thoughts about the Chapel, connections and Oneness. The problem I have had in my mind has been that I still see the Chapel's Oneness view as more accurate than the Trinitarian view. But I never saw a connection between this doctrine and connections. Well, I can see the connection you are making now and you may be right about that. But in my own mind, I do not see our Oneness view giving license to anyone to worship Jesus apart from His Deity. And I think THIS was the first fatal error. Our whole approach to connections was bass ackwards. As you observed many months ago on this board, we first experienced connections, then scrambled for an explanation and biblical support. This was the SECOND error we made. We fancied ourselves so anchored in the Word -- then when the test came, we were no better than the Faith teachers with our Bibles. Twisting the scriptures to our own destruction -- film at 11. ---------- Same error Posted by Dave Kenady on 3/23/2001, 9:25 am , in reply to "Jesus apart from His Deity" The folks who Steve calls the "Jesus is not God" folks seem to be making the exact same mistake we made at the Chapel when we decided we could disect Jesus and fellowship with the human being apart from His Deity (the glorified Son of Man). I've wondered for a long time now how they and I can believe the exact same things about Jesus, yet come to opposite conclusions (i.e. "therefore Jesus is fully God"; "therefore Jesus is NOT God".) As the 60's song said, "This really blew my mind!" I think it is because to me, Col 2:9 tells me to view Jesus as fully God and to always see Him as fully God, though he was born a man like me (except His literal Father was God). I'm not willing to downplay this. Theologically, he can be seen apart from His Deity. His dual Nature can be categorized and shown, but He is always God and man. It apparently is what deceived the Chapel and destroyed it.