Posted by A2 on 4/17/2001, 3:20 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 3/30/2001, 1:24 pm , in reply to "The objection: The distinguished sense?" A2, You ask 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 seem to be under the impression that I claim to be speaking officially for Trinitarianism. That's not really the case. I don't have a book on my shelf labeled "Dictionary of Trinitarianism" that I refer to everytime I read a posting here on the Chapel Board. What I am saying is that, as I have returned to the Scriptures over the past eighteen months or so to look at what they say about the identity of Jesus, trying to make that attempt as free as possible of any kind of doctrinal bias, I have found that the picture that emerged was closer to trinitarianism than to what I had been taught at the Chapel. Somewhat shaken, but also realizing that most of what I knew about the Trinity had really come from the Chapel, I took a look at some trinitarian sources and found that they were more sane than I had expected, based on my Chapel expectations. I also observed that they were far more scripturally-oriented. As I continued in this pursuit, there were some interesting developments. One which I have documented on this board was that I discovered Don's UROG history to have blatant fabrications in quoted sources. The way he manipulated church history was far worse than anything he could allege, much less actually document, in trinitarian sources. Finally I did arrive at a point where I began describing my beliefs as trinitarian. But I am not willing to be made into some kind of spokesman for “orthodox” trinitarianism. I think the trinity does present an accurate and scriptural picture of God, and I now know its history is not what the Chapel told us it was, but I can't claim that every one of my beliefs comes from “orthodox” trinitarianism (though I am not aware of any that deviate from it). All I can really do is identify places where I have found that the Oneness understanding I myself possessed was inacurate in both historical and scriptural details, and where the corresponding trinitarian picture was better. If you think I emerged from the Chapel's Bible college with a completely mistaken idea of UROG and that subsequently I have also managed to acquire a completely mistaken understanding of trinitarian doctrine, then I guess I could accept that if you could give me an articulate account of the real facts. The trouble is, so far I find your version of things to be very unclear and confusing, and it is not something I find compelling enough to make me re-evaluate either what I can see for myself in my Bible college notes or what I know about trinitarianism. But, to return to the specific subject at hand, I can't tell you for sure what the “trinitarian understanding” of "God in Christ" is because I can't remember if I've seen a trinitarian source directly address it. I can tell you why I have concluded the Chapel version of it fell short in my own understanding, however. When the Chapel cited "God in Christ," it usually referenced 2 Corinthians 5:19—“..God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” When you take a look at the entire context, especially the verse preceding it, one sees easily that this passage is speaking of God doing something through Christ. It is not a verse that is meant to show God dwells inside of Jesus. To use it as a prooftext for that purpose is to use it out of context. If, on the other hand, one uses the verses in John where Jesus says the Father is in him, one must also note that Jesus says in the same context that he (Jesus) is in the Father. The Father is in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Father. Therefore the statement cannot speak of one of them dwelling inside of the other person, but of a close identity and intimate inter-relationship. You also write You conclude that the 2nd person of the Trinity must be the deity of Christ... No, that's not what I've concluded. I've concluded that the Son of God has existed eternally and that, after he took on human nature, he was known as Jesus Christ. In other words, when we speak of the “deity of Christ”, we speak not of a person but of a nature. And you continue ...but the Trinitarian claim does not scripturally refute that the Father could be the deity of Christ? In my understanding, it is not any trinitarian claim that makes this impossible, but 1) the scriptural statements that make it plain that the Son of God has had some kind of personal existence distinct from the Father from eternity, and 2) the statement in Philippians 2 that Jesus was in the form of God before he was made in the likeness of man. These things, for me, establish that the deity of Christ was due not to the Father in him but to the Son's own eternal nature of deity. You also write 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. I think it's probably because you have an inaccurate idea of what it is I'm actually saying, based on the inaccurate way you keep rephrasing my conclusions. I'm not “boggled at” the Father and Christ being Jesus, I just don't think that's what scripture shows us. I think that when it speaks of Jesus, the scriptures show us the eternal Son of God who became man, and that that one person was known as Jesus. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Well...not really. Posted by Anon.II on 3/30/2001, 6:50 pm , in reply to "Re: The objection..." No, actually, I was not under the impression that You are speaking officially for Trinitarianism. As I've asserted before, your form of Trinitarianism is not the norm to me, but you've claimed orthodoxy so many times and since you were going on and on ad nauseum about God in Christ being mis-interpreted, I expected at least some kind of understanding from you that would support your Trinitarian objections. I had said: "You conclude that the 2nd person of the Trinity must be the deity of Christ..." You said: No, that's not what I've concluded. I've concluded that the Son of God has existed eternally and that, after he took on human nature, he was known as Jesus Christ. In other words, when we speak of the “deity of Christ”, we speak not of a person but of a nature. I see many conclusions on your part, but do you actually deny that you believe that the 2nd person of the Trinity must be the deity of Christ..."? If so, than who is the deity of Christ? This other statement is also really odd when you say: "when we speak of the “deity of Christ”, we speak not of a person but of a nature." You now conclude that His personage is not divine? The rephrasing of your words is something you are doing, not me. This constant blaming is really old. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/30/2001, 10:09 pm , in reply to "Well...not really." A2, You write that I have “claimed orthodoxy.” That is false—I've written only that I am not aware that any of my statements have strayed from it; and that though you claimed that they have, you have not cited anyplace that shows it. I am a relatively new trinitarian, having believed Oneness for nearly twenty years. I would be foolish to claim everything I believe about trinitarianism is accurate, since I was conditioned by the Chapel for all those years to react against something I can see now is a caricature of trinitarianism. But as I read trinitarian literature and history now, I see that it does a much better job of explaining all the scriptures that speak of God and Christ and the relationship between the two than did UROG theology. But in many ways I am still learning about trinitarianism, and so I do not presume that I can accurately state “orthodox” theology. I can only bear witness that in the places I now think UROG theology was mistaken about the scriptures, what I do know of trinitarian theology seems more accurate to me so far. You also write ...do you actually deny that you believe that the 2nd person of the Trinity must be the deity of Christ I can't "deny" that statement, because its wording is so strange I don't know what you mean by it. What I can say is that I believe the scriptures show that the Son of God has personally and eternally possessed divine nature in and with the Father, that the Son took on human nature at a point in time, and that from that point he has been known as Jesus Christ. The Son's deity is therefore not due to a person dwelling inside of him, but to the fact that he was by nature deity before he took on human nature. Neither humanity or deity are persons—they are natures which are possessed by persons. Persons have natures, but natures are not persons. If that is not "orthodox" trinitarian doctrine, you have not been able to cite anything that shows me otherwise; but even if it were not “orthodox,” that would be of secondary concern to me. The main thing is that the statements above are an accurate summary of what the scriptures say, and that is really all I am after. But so far it does appear to be a happy side benefit that it lines up with trinitarianism, and thus resolves some of the isolation that UROG theology had led me into. You also write You now conclude that His personage is not divine? No—I said that when we speak of the deity of Christ we speak not of a person but of a nature. I am saying that if you think of his deity as being due to a person of deity dwelling inside Jesus then, scripturally speaking, that is a mistaken picture. The scriptures picture Jesus' deity as a nature he had before he was made in the likeness of men, not as a person dwelling inside of him. Sincerely, Steve