Posted by A2 on 4/17/2001, 3:08 pm

The irony Posted by Anon.II on 3/28/2001, 10:11 pm , in reply to "Re: The point..." You said: "If you don't care to find out what other folks mean by the words they use, then you can probably amuse yourself with imagined ironies all day long." Actually, the irony is that your not considering what this "other folks" means. Do you "care" to find out what I mean? Condescending remarks do not illustrate that to me. Sorry to say, but this irony was not viewed as amusing, but rather an illustration of the absense of caring on your part for the "other folks", and the irony continues. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/29/2001, 3:50 pm , in reply to "The irony" A2, This posting consolidates my replies to a couple of your recent postings here. You ask Why do you keep insisting that Oneness ONLY believes Jesus is God because God is "in" Christ? Because I am not aware of a reason why I should not. If it is not an issue for you, do not worry about it. However, that is what I came away from four years of Bible college at the Chapel believing, and it is the issue with which I have personally grappled over the past year or so—is Jesus both man and God by nature, or is he a man who can be said to be God only because God dwells in him? If your observation is that this is a meaningless question, then your observation is noted. But as I go back over my Bible college notes, your observation does not seem to be borne out, and it does not quiet the concerns that I have with the UROG theology I was taught. You also ask How does Don's acknowledgement of Jesus human nature "prove" that Don taught us to worship His humanity "alone"? I wasn't talking about his acknowledgement of Jesus' human nature, but about his claim that fellowship with (or worship of) Christ can be seen as two kinds (whether they occur simultaneously or not)—taking place with him “as man” or “as deity.” And in regard to “Don teaching us to worship Jesus as man alone,” I wasn't trying to prove that Don necessarily intended that, but rather that his words could easily bear that meaning and that, as a result, many took his words in that sense. Because he was operating from a faulty theological base, Don himself may have been confused about what the dual nature of Christ meant. He may have not been fully aware of the implications of his own teaching. Sometimes he spoke as if the dual nature meant that Jesus himself was fully God and fully man, and other times he spoke as if it meant Jesus was a man in whom the Father dwelt. I cannot see how both of those can be true, because if we mean the Father when we refer to the deity of Jesus, then Jesus himself is not both God and man—he is the man in whom God dwells. But Don continued to teach both versions without accounting for the discrepancy. And that teaching allowed the door to open to the concept of “worshipping Christ as man alone.” That is all I am saying. You also write ...how come when a Trinitarian considers Jesus humanity it’s OK, but when Don or Oneness does, it’s neglecting deity? Honestly, if Trinitarians can consider Jesus’ human nature, than Oneness surely can. Again, my objection was not to the consideration of Jesus' human nature, it was to the teaching that one can distinguish senses in which we worship Jesus as man and God. Sincerely, Steve ---------- The objection: The distinguished sense? Posted by Anon.II on 3/30/2001, 11:09 am , in reply to "Re: The irony" You misrepresented my postion by only quoting a partial sentence (excluded text in parenthesis): (Since Oneness believes Phil.2 says Jesus by nature is God,) Why do you keep insisting that Oneness ONLY believe Jesus is God because God is "in" Christ? You then answered this partial quote saying: "Because I am not aware of a reason why I should not." How is this an honest answer to my question? I have the exact same reason that you have for believing that Jesus is God by nature, and you ignore it completely. This is what is known as a "double-standard", and this is why I have a hard time believing many of the things you say. Continuing this accusation against the Oneness doctrine, of not believing that Jesus is God by nature, falls under SEVERAL logical fallacies: ***Begging the question. The argument assumes its conclusion is true but DOES NOT SHOW it to be true. Also called circular reasoning. You DO NOT SHOW (any proof) that the Oneness belief in the scriptural terms "God in Christ" negates their belief in Philippians 2, that Jesus is God by nature. ***Argumentum ad naseum. The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An argumentum ad naseum is one that employs constant repetition in asserting a concept. No matter how many times Philippians 2 is affirmed, like a broken record, the accusation is repeated over and over. ***Special Pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments. Oneness has the exact same reason that you have for believing that Jesus is God by nature, yet you dismiss it because your (personal grappling) cannot reconcile what God "in" Christ means to the Oneness believer in light of Philippians 2. ***Straw man. It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. Your partial quote perfectly illustrated your failure to deal with the actual argument I offered. Leaving out my reference to Philippians 2 misrepresented my position, for the purpose of knocking down and concluding that my position had been demolished as insignificant. ***Shifting the Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. You said: "But as I go back over my Bible college notes, your observation does not seem to be borne out, and it does not quiet the concerns that I have with the UROG theology I was taught." My observation? Not borne out? Again, as the originator of the assertion, the observations that need to be borne out are yours. Your observations are in need of some kind of support other than a Trinitarian bias. ***Hasty generalization. An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise (assumption) without attention given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition's application. It is a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possible unrepresentative, cases to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. Note the relation to statistics: much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the representativeness. You said: "And in regard to "Don teaching us to worship Jesus as man alone," I wasn't' trying to prove that Don necessarily intended that, but rather that his words could easily bear that meaning and that, AS A RESULT, MANY TOOK HIS WORDS IN THAT SENSE." Your ASSUMPTION without attention given to the obvious condition (No proof) does in deed affect the application of your accusation. Offering as evidence "my Bible college notes" ALONE, without even showing where your notes support such an assumption, you then generalize that many, at Chapel, took his words in the sense that Jesus was God ONLY because God was "in" Christ. Those who do not believe that Jesus is deity have clearly stated that their conclusion is now different than what they were taught about Oneness at Chapel. Since the scriptures do say that God was in Christ, what then, is the Trinitarian understanding of the scriptures that teach God in Christ? You conclude that the 2nd person of the Trinity must be the deity of Christ, but the Trinitarian claim does not scripturally refute that the Father could be the deity of Christ? To me, the hang-up is the Trinitarian bias, not the scriptural teaching about the Father and the Son. You have no problem making Jesus a human/divine personage, yet you're boggled at the idea of the Father (deity) and Christ (humanity) being Jesus,Yahweh the Savior. I don't get it. Despite the illusive “distinguished sense” criticism, Oneness believers are just and righteous to worship Jesus as God, and as the glorified Son of man.