Posted by A2 on 4/6/2001, 5:55 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 3/24/2001, 10:25 am , in reply to "Jesus apart from His Deity" Thanks, Dave. I agree with about the errors, and in this sense: When, under the unrecognized test, we scrambled for Biblical support for connections, the teaching about "fellowship with the glorified Son of Man" was there to spring the trap, ready and waiting. If we had had a more accurate view of who Jesus was (and therefore of how we could and could not fellowship with him), we may have been able to see the phenomena of connections for what they were -- a perversion of proper spiritual fellowship. But this is only part of the story, of course. Sincerely, Steve ---------- My answers Posted by Anon.II on 3/27/2001, 2:21 pm , in reply to "Re: The Council of Chalcedon" Yes, I do consider the Council of Chalcedon to be established Trinitarian Orthodox. I do not agree with your conclusion: 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?” There needs to be further qualification from established orthodoxy that the 2nd personage of God is both human and divine. Is the 1st person of God and the 3rd person of God combined personages also? If not, does this not constitute a distinction between the 3 persons that is not suppose to exist? Also, (by the grace of God) I do not use words according to my definition of them either, but by the principle of proper translations of the original languages. And by that standard, I see Jesus is shown to be the Son of God, whose human personage had a beginning, who is the express image of God, and that the Logos was with God and was God from the beginning. In biblical terms, I think Jesus is NOT the 2nd person of God. Steve further asks: 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. Yes, these two statements are incompatible descriptions. Two united natures does not suggest a split personality. In summary: Steve: I still think the Chapel's Oneness doctrine seriously misled us by creating a Jesus with whom we could fellowship apart from his deity. Anon.II: I do not see evidence of this claim. Steve: 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. Anon.II: I DO see Jesus as one person who is by nature both man and God, so where is the perilous point? Steve: Jesus' deity is not due to God dwelling inside of him, but to a nature he possessed. Anon.II: Philippians 2 says that Jesus by nature was found to be in the form of God, this is not a desputed point. Steve: Therefore one cannot attempt to fellowship with the glorified Son of Man as if he were a person that was not also God. Anon.II: What Oneness believer thinks that the glorified Son of man is not also God? Steve: God wants us to have fellowship with himself, not with another. Anon.II: This is where I see that the Trinity is confused and labors under the pressure to find an answer that results in using terminology that is more than what the bible says about Jesus. The scriptures do say that the Son of man IS Jesus Christ, and we are suppose to have fellowship with Jesus Christ. While we do recognize His human nature, we just do not view His 2 natures separately. Mat 16:13-16 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 1 Corinthians 1:9 1 Corinthians 1 1 Corinthians 1:8-10 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Steve: The attempt to fellowship with a glorified man of our own imagination led to great spiritual harm. Anon.II: This accusation that suggests our fellowship was not mindful of His deity is not substantiated. Steve: I believe that trinitarian teaching recognizes the same thing, and I am not conscious that I differ from it on this point. Anon.II: This assertion has not been substantiated either. In regards to nagging, I do not accept the idea that this is “just” an Internet site. These posts are under the guise of Christian conversation, and passing it off as “just” an Internet site sounds more like making an occasion for the flesh to me. Like you, I appreciate honest, well thought-out postings, but it is the ad hominems, brusque dismissals, and the parroting of remarks repeatedly that are nagging, and I would hope that you would offer the same in “mature” discussions. Would you stop reading the others comments? Naturally you wouldn’t, because you’re hoping for the same thing every one else is hoping for, Christ like behavior.