Posted by DK on 6/22/2001, 3:49 pm

Questions and answers... Posted by Steve B. on 4/8/2001, 10:56 am , in reply to "Re: No man Has Seen God at any time, but Jesus has declared Him" Keith, You ask Isn't this still somewhat clear to you? It is clear to me as (more or less) the reasoning that led me to at one time to leave trinitarian doctrine in favor of the Chapel's Oneness doctrine. The problems I have come to see with it are that it does not take adequate account of the full range of scriptural revelation. Dave says in one of his points, “We cannot otherwise see an invisible, omni-present Spirit that fills heaven and earth.” This itself contradicts the testimony of Exodus 24:9-11— 9Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 11And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. (Exodus 24:9-11 KJV) I cannot see that this amounts to seeing an angel who represented God, as Dave seems to suggest some of the other theophanies in the Old Testament might be. For one thing, the passage notes that “upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God.” The author was well aware that God had decreed that no man could see God and live, but here he notes an exception. In the same way, the incarnation was an exception. Man, on his own, cannot see God. Unless, that is, God chooses to make himself visible in whatever way he wants for whatever reason he wants. Also, the context of 1 John 4:12 (“No man hath seen God at any time”) is not primarily about God's mode of being but about our love for others. The emphasis is on the fact that it is all too easy to talk about love for an unseen God, but that our real task should be to love those we see every day. This section starts off, “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God” (verse 7). It concludes: 19We love him, because he first loved us. 20If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. (1 John 4:19-21 KJV) Based on these observations, I believe it is wrong to take a sentence from this passage, isolate it from its context, and use it to say God could never become visible in any way. Another problem, in my opinion, with Oneness theology (as Dave presents it here) is this statement, speaking of John 1:1 where it says the Word was God: This expression is God, both in that it is in accordance with the will of God and is from God and is that which we can perceive to be God. This to me no longer computes. To speak of a verbal expression of God's as actually being God is, to me, just not consistent with the rest of John, or with the rest of the Bible as a whole. This interpretation seems very strained to me, and seems to me to be made only to save Oneness theology in the face of overwhelming evidence in John that he means to say that The Word is in fact the very person of the eternal Son of God, who has conscious memory of being in the Father since the beginning. You also ask Is the Trinity or something close to it really the answer, in your opinion? Yes, I still think so. You also ask Or do you still have more questions than answers? I would not characterize myself as wandering around with unanswered questions. I would caution you against taking polemical views expressed about me on this board and others as reality. On the Godhead board, as you probably know, the common account of me given by my opponents in the “Jesus is not God” camp is that I am “unstable” and “driven.” On this board, there appear to be some people who see me as consumed by “blame” toward the Chapel. One is not always an objective witness about oneself, of course, but those views of me from people who have never met me in person don't correspond to the things I know to be true about myself from the inside. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Posted by Mark Dial on 4/8/2001, 1:38 pm , in reply to "Questions and answers..." I never been able to fully understand the Scripture that no man can see God and live.Paul said we see in part and threw a glass darkly. Jewish tradition states of Noah that he took stones that glowed on the ark. That provided light,heat,and changed the animals nature.They did not need to build fires as many had to be fed at night. I know what it is like to glow as seeing a light inside years ago personaly in my very early days at the chapel. ---------- Posted by Keith on 4/8/2001, 1:58 pm , in reply to "Questions and answers..." "polemical"? I'm at a lose at that one. A doctrine (UROG or close to it) that to me makes so much sense (to me anyway) and fits so nicely (overall) with Scriptures, I guess I'm personally still just curious as to how you can buy into such a confusing (to me and countless others) and seemingly mystical doctrine, that in my opinion doesn't make sense. You address things very scholarly, even eloquently but there are still simple straight forward facts that have to be overlooked, in my opinion. I don't want to get into all the ins and outs again. I just still find it hard to believe you've swapped views back to the Trinity, that's all. No offense. ---------- This was also my motivation Posted by Dave Kenady on 4/8/2001, 5:03 pm , in reply to "Re: Questions and answers..." My motivation for writing the piece was not to strain at propping up Oneness in John 1. The reason I wrote the piece was because everytime I heard the Trinitarian argument from John 1, it always sounded to me like seeing the Hope Diamond and mistaking it for just another rock. If John (and therefore God) took the time to open the book with a discussion about the logos of God, there must have been a reason other than to provide Jesus Christ with a middle name! The Living Bible goes so far as to render John 1 as "Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is Himself God." The whole Bible shows us that no one sees God unless God manifests Himself in a way that human eyes can percieve. Further evidence of the existence of God is given by that which God has caused to exist. The very creation proceeded from God -- His Word. Does this honestly sound like a prop for Oneness?? ---------- Posted by Gordy on 4/9/2001, 8:11 pm , in reply to "This was also my motivation" Dave: I think you touched on something with this middle name idea. I've heard people refer to "Jesus H. Christ" but I have never been able to find out what the "H" stands for. If they had said "Jesus L. Christ" I would now be informed. Oh well, still in the dark. Gordy