Posted by AU on 8/25/2001, 5:50 pm

some objections Posted by Steve M on 7/4/2001, 12:06 am , in reply to "Still more comments." Dear Steve, On subjects other than Christology, you maintain a reasonable and civil posture, even when vigorously arguing against others' views. But on the subject at hand, I have often found you uncharacteristically given to cheap shots, ad hominem, and even misrepresentation. For example, from your previous post, these statements, with my comments interjected: SB: The remaining adherents of UROG, as well as the "Jesus is not God" folks,... SM: I have never heard anyone on this board describe their belief as, "Jesus is not God". Most people prefer their views to be described by that which they affirm, not being placed on the defensive by describing them in terms of what another affirms. We call your doctrine, "trinitarian", because you affirm the doctrine of the trinity - rather than calling you "God is not One - He's three" folks. Speaking for myself, I don't begin with the premise "Jesus is not God", or that he is God. The starting place is with explicit, clear verses that say God is in Christ, in full measure, speaking in Him, etc - which can be fairly summarized as the Incarnation. An accurate way of describing my view, whatever you think of it, would be "the God in Christ" position. The Incarnation view would do, also. Perhaps someone else with similar ideas as mine has a better title for the position. It also is not entirely accurate to describe the view the way you do, for semantic reasons. I'm sure all will acknowledge the verses which refer to Jesus specifically as God (theos). The arguments concern whether theos is exclusively used of Deity (I note your statements to Cliff about word meaning depending on context), and/or whether Christ must be regarded as Deity by nature if one is not to be thought an infidel. SB: ...always start foaming at the mouth at this point. No wonder they think... SM: An occasional hyperbole I can appreciate. But here you're defending your position (that God died on the cross) with a very broad ("always") ad hominem. With a completely foam free mouth, I will state simply that the notion of God dying is abominable to me. SB: they have so much insight into what the “strict monotheism” of first-century Judaism was like—they know exactly what the Pharisees felt like when they heard things that implied Jesus himself was God. SM: That is a cheap shot - reminiscent of the time you said that I would rejoice at Muslim persection of trinitarian Christians. On the subject of Christology, you (again, uncharacteristically) have repeatedly resorted to such tactics rather than deal directly with positions that people actually hold. I, for one, would like to see you adopt a different m.o. A good starting place would be for you to address the explanations Lanny gave some time back to the verses you cited as proofs for the pre-existence of Christ. ---------- Answers to some objections. Posted by Steve B. on 7/4/2001, 9:32 am , in reply to "some objections" Steve, You write ...on the subject at hand, I have often found you uncharacteristically given to cheap shots, ad hominem, and even misrepresentation. I'm sorry you think so. I know that I make very strong statements sometimes on the subject, but it is due to my very strong opinion that the doctrine in question is a serious departure from Christian faith, and I am still somewhat shocked that it could have come out of the Chapel, a place I once thought was nearly an ideal church. You also write I have never heard anyone on this board describe their belief as, "Jesus is not God". Most people prefer their views to be described by that which they affirm, not being placed on the defensive by describing them in terms of what another affirms. My goal is not to win your approval for the way I describe your beliefs, but to describe them as accurately as I can. "Jesus is not God" labels most precisely what I find to be the distinguishing characteristic of your theology, for of course trinitarians also believe that God was in Christ, but in a different sense. I am not asking you to describe yourself as a "Jesus is not God" believer. If I were, then your comments would have some merit. You also write We call your doctrine, "trinitarian", because you affirm the doctrine of the trinity - rather than calling you "God is not One - He's three" folks. But we could validly object to that because it's inaccurate. Trinitarians do believe God is one, just in a different sense than you. We believe it is a statement about the number of Gods in existence, not a statement about his nature. What one wants in a good theological label is something that distinguishes the different senses in which different groups believe things. By capitalizing "God" in the "Jesus is not God" label, it is made clear you do not believe Jesus is God in the ordinary sense as referring to the one true God of the Old and New Testament. You also write (in reference to my statement about Oneness and Jesus is not God folks "foaming at the mouth") An occasional hyperbole I can appreciate. But here you're defending your position (that God died on the cross) with a very broad ("always") ad hominem. My statement was made with a sideways grin at Lanny. In a posting last week he was the first to use the phrase, and it was in reference to trinitarians’ alleged reaction to some aspect of UROG theology. I didn't hear you object to it then, so why now? But beyond this, I think even a casual study of the anti-trinitarian boards on the Internet would reveal far more rabid statements from them about trinitarians (ever read the postings of a guy named Frances over on the “Godhead” board?) than vice versa, so I do not feel inclined to back down from this statement. You also write That is a cheap shot - reminiscent of the time you said that I would rejoice at Muslim persection of trinitarian Christians. On the subject of Christology, you (again, uncharacteristically) have repeatedly resorted to such tactics rather than deal directly with positions that people actually hold. Since we're on the subject of representing things accurately, this was that original statement: But the relevant thing is that inside of a mosque, if you entered on the right Friday, you would a hear an expositon of God's nature you would be more comfortable with than that you would hear in most churches, and a condemnation of Trinitarian infidels that would warm your heart. I still must stand by this also, not as a cheap shot, but as a fairly accurate characterization of the similarities in rants against trinitarian doctrine one hears coming from Muslims and "Jesus is not God" believers. My observation didn't have anything to do with you rejoicing at Muslim persecution of Christians but rather with your identification with their condemnation of trinitarian doctrine. And of course "Jesus is not God" folks are going to regard this as a cheap shot. But it remains true that it is a very striking similarity I have actually observed in browsing some of the Muslim/Christian dialogues on the Web. You also write A good starting place would be for you to address the explanations Lanny gave some time back to the verses you cited as proofs for the pre-existence of Christ. Well, I have no objection to that, but the frustrating thing is that I've probably addressed each of them more than once in the past. They're the very Chapel interpretations whose lack of plausibility ultimately failed to compare favorably to the straight-forward expositions I found in trinitarian doctrine. Basically, the UROG interpretation fails to take account of the natural, primary meaning of the words in the verse and instead substitutes some secondary sense in which the words could be taken, were they in some other context. Finding a way to fit a passage to UROG doctrine takes precedence over accepting the natural meaning of the verse. Sincerely, Steve