Posted by Steve B., et al on 8/18/2001, 11:08 am

Posted by Steve B. on 6/28/2001, 10:29 am The differences between the Chapel’s version of Oneness (a.k.a. UROG) and UPC Oneness doctrine is a very interesting topic and deserves a thread of its own. Gordy says below, “The UPC believes Christ was only a shell, thing or an it, a hunk of human flesh that only existed for the habitation of God's Spirit while on earth. ” I think I remember the exchange over on the Godhead board from which he gets this, but it would be more accurate to say a particular UPC member, who was zealous but none too articulate or knowledgeable, was maneuvered into saying that. After studying the Oneness documents at the link Dave posted below (http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/onenessvtrinity.html), I can't say that it is really true. For example, in the article “The Man Christ Jesus” by Robert A. Sabin, we find these statements: Who is Jesus Christ? We do not hesitate to reply "He is God," and he certainly is. Some however, emphasize his deity almost to the exclusion of his humanity. We believe Jesus is God in flesh, and we must emphasize his divinity, but not to the exclusion of his humanity. Should we do so, his humanity becomes just an impersonal robe. Jesus becomes a mere body, a carcass that God has put on and wears into the world. ...Jesus was the man in whom God was embodied with a will, a personality, a mind, a heart with which to love. The disciples knew him as a man, they did not know him as God. ...The man was like other men in all ways except sinfulness. He prayed; he obeyed; he was subject in all things to God. He could not, and did not, use his divinity for his own benefit. And in Chapter 5, “The Son of God” from The Oneness of God by David Bernard (which is included in its entirety at the site Dave posted), we find this: The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body - the shell of a human - with God inside. He was human in body, soul, and spirit with the fulness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God's nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus. Without the Spirit of God there would have been only a lifeless human that would not have been Jesus Christ. Only in these terms can we describe and distinguish the two natures in Jesus; we know that He acted and spoke from one role or the other, but we also know that the two natures were not actually separated in Him. With our finite minds, we can make only a distinction and not a separation in the two natures that blended perfectly in Him. So we see in UPC Oneness theology explicit rejections of the view that Jesus' humanity is an impersonal robe and explicit affirmations that his humanity means that Jesus has a human soul and spirit as well as a body. Is there a “wide gulf” between UPC Oneness theology and the Chapel's? I am not so sure anymore, at least judging from these documents. There may have been some development in UPC Oneness doctrine since the early "Jesus Only" days when its adherents were willing to state without qualification that “Jesus is the Father,” or “Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Several of the Oneness documents on the site Dave posted discuss the need to properly qualify such statements or to view them in the proper context. I would be interested in hearing what others think are specific differences between UPC Oneness theology and UROG theology. One thing I don't find in UPC Oneness theology that we saw in UROG is an emphasis on “the glorified Son of Man” There is a vagueness in the UPC documents (except in Bernard later in chapter 5—and he gets into deep trouble dicussing this, I feel, but at least he bravely took the bull by its horns) on exactly who or what Jesus is now that he is back in heaven with the Father, and certainly no emphasis on our fellowship with Jesus as man. That seems to me to be the unique element that Don has added to UPC Oneness theology. But the UPC, because of what I feel is a deeply flawed Christology, left the door open for this to happen. By this I mean that this Christology, which Don shares with them, allows them to think that the two natures in Jesus are not in fact wholly united but can be treated as if they exist independently of each other. For example, in the same article by Robert Sabin quoted above, he says Christ possessed two identities, two capacities. Jesus was both God and man. He could act in his capacity as God. He could act in the capacity of man. He could speak as God and he could speak as man. As a man he said, "I thirst." As God he could say to the blind man or to the leper, "I will, be thou clean, " without any reverence [sic] to being deity. And in the same chapter quoted from Bernard above, this passage occurs: We can resolve most questions about the Godhead if we properly understand the dual nature of Jesus. When we read a statement about Jesus we must determine if it describes Jesus as a man or as God. Moreover, whenever Jesus speaks in Scripture we must determine whether He is speaking as man or as God. Whenever we see a description of two natures with respect to Jesus, we should not think of two persons in the Godhead or of two Gods, but we should think of Spirit and flesh. Sometimes it is easy to get confused when the Bible describes Jesus in these two different roles, especially when it describes Him acting in both roles in the same story. For example, He could sleep one minute and calm the storm the next minute. He could speak as man one moment and then as God the next moment. However, we must always remember that Jesus is fully God and not merely an anointed man. At the same time, He was fully man, not just an appearance of man. He had a dual nature unlike anything we have, and we cannot adequately compare our existence or experience to His. What would seem strange or impossible if applied to a mere human becomes understandable when viewed in the context of One who is both fully God and fully man at the same time. In fact, I do not believe it is Biblical to picture Jesus as acting (or speaking) either “as God” or “as man.” He simply acts or speaks as Jesus, the Son of God. But both Don and the UPC have to make a distinction in the modes in which Jesus can act or speak in order to get their theology to work. It is what ended up, for us, in the disastrous attempt to fellowship with Jesus “as man.” By pressing UPC theology to its logical conclusion at a particularily vulnerable point (“Is Jesus still separate from the Father now that he's back in heaven?”) Don inadvertantly exposed one of its errors. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Posted by Author Unknown on 6/28/2001, 7:41 pm , in reply to "Differences between UROG and UPC Oneness?" David is a devout man of God. He took his time reviewing an early sample of a book I just finished, which is now called (Ride the Ark through Armageddon). Back then it was under the working title (The Midnight Hour). I had three chapters in the book at that time that contained an understanding of the theology we are now addressing on this board. These chapters were cut from (Ride the Ark). David rejected my chapters, which were based on the UROG classes that I took in Bible College. I took the classes UROG 1 2 and 3 all taught by Earl F. I also studied the UROG tape series as preached by DB. I also studied my Bible for over twenty years. And I cried out to Christ during prayer in order to understand this subject better so I could write a commendable book for his children. Here is a small sample, which goes contrary to a quote from Dave’s work. “Consider this scripture, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1John 3:2NIV). In our text from 1John 3:2, the reference "when he appears" is a direct reference to Jesus. Jesus is the "he" in the text. Now, look at the implication; "we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." The text clearly states that we shall be like Jesus. At that point in time we will see Jesus for who and what he really is, we will see that we are like him, because Jesus was also like us. Jesus Christ was a man, too, in the full sense of the word. Jesus lived a real human life. Jesus had a real human soul. Why would the Bible command us to come "unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13) if Christ were not also a man? Jesus was "our example.” He is the “image” that we are to be made into.” (Book in Progress, called The Hallmark of Christianity falls short of Legitimacy). “However, we must always remember that Jesus is fully God and not merely an anointed man…and we cannot adequately compare our existence or experience to His” (David B). David told me on the phone that the reason Jesus died on the cross was because when God’s spirit withdrew from him he was no longer capable of living. David called Jesus the God-man. He said he was incarnate. He said his being was ripped apart when the divine essence left the body. David’s team were not happy with the idea set forth in my book that Christ was anointed. In David’s eyes if you God were to take away God from the man you would have a lifeless body. ---------- Messiah Annointed One?!! Posted by Dave Kenady on 6/28/2001, 8:53 pm , in reply to "Re: Differences between UROG and UPC Oneness?" I'm trying to imagine rejecting the idea of the Messiah being the Anointed One.