Posted by Dave Kenady, et al on 8/26/2001, 5:40 pm

Posted by Dave Kenady on 7/1/2001, 12:55 pm For my part, it really appears to me that you're saying you are going to hang on to your understanding and your UROG theology no matter what the Bible says about God and about Jesus. That really is fine with me, and I really do understand it in light of what we both went through at the Chapel, but I myself must put it behind me. The second thread from this quote involves the first part of your comment Steve. I sincerely hope that after all these years I am not found to be just as closeminded as the brethren I left when I came to Seattle. I don't think this is true at all. In fact, as I have paid rather close attention to all of your posts, I have to come to the conclusion that you are simply opting for a different view of scripture based on different foundational truths or at least a different emphasis on the scriptures. We are about 3 years along with this message board and I still do not accept the premise you started with. That premise was to proclaim that the foundational attributes of God that UROG builds itself upon are not valid. It seems to me that everything you have said is based on these first words you mentioned that it is misguided to base the nature of Jesus Christ on the foundational truths of God's nature we all learned in UROG. God is One God is Invisible God is Everywhere Present God is all powerful God is all-knowing God is unchanging God is immortal God is eternal God is Infinite These attributes are not valid in your opinion to examine who Jesus is and isn't. To you, it doesn't matter that the immortal God, Jesus who was God by nature, died on the cross. You refute the dual nature which attempts to avoid these contradictions, yet are not at all concerned that you have no answer to these contradictions. In effect, you are giving me the same answer I got years ago from my pastors when I politely walked out of their offices and decided that I wasn't going to find the truth from them. I'm not going to conclude that God can indeed create a rock so big, He can't lift it. I think there is something wrong with that way of thinking -- at least if words in the Bible mean anything logically. The simple concepts in the Bible don't need to be needlessly complicated just because the history of the church endorses it. I don't mind if you believe in the Trinity. As my previous message said, we all had to go somewhere in our search post-Chapel. And I guess I could hardly blame anyone for ending up where ever they ended up. I don't disagree with all you say. This practice we had of fellowshipping with the glorified Son of Man is not something I feel I can defend. Lots of new stuff on the infamous "middle shelf" of my mind. But though I appreciate your well documented and well thought out posts, it often seems that instead of standing on scripture A and explaining away scripture B, you have just switched to standing on scripture B and explaining away scripture A -- Phil 2 and Col 2 come to mind. You tell me that Col 2 can't be saying that the fulness of Deity actually dwells in Jesus because Phil 2 shows Jesus as God by nature who became a man. Yet, I look at these scriptures and see just the opposite -- Phil 2 must be speaking of Jesus as man on earth finding Himself as God manifest, yet chose to humble Himself because Col 2 literally says that the fulness of God dwells in Him bodily. (Not to mention God's attributes that He doesn't change, nor is He is He a man, nor is He diminished.) I'm not getting eye-opening revelations in these conversations like I used to when I learned that I must be born-again to see the kingdom of God or when I learned that believers would speak in tongues and heal the sick or when I learned that "when the perfect comes" was not the completion of the NT, but that time when we see face to face. The years at the Chapel were like standing next to Moses at the Red Sea. I appreciate all God gave me there. And I would agree that there were problems, some of which brought down our church. But I'm not ready to tear it all down and start over. I still believe much that I learned there and see no reason to change. I would not characterize this as "hang(ing) on to your understanding and your UROG theology no matter what the Bible says about God and about Jesus." ---------- A hearty Amen Posted by lanny on 7/1/2001, 7:17 pm , in reply to "No matter what the Bible says???" Great post that gets right to some core issues. The attributes of God are clear and concise, giving us a context to use to interpret other Scriptures by. I also believe that that is what the Bible DOES teach. It is not "in spite of" but what it does in fact teach. Thanks, Dave for hitting the nail on the head. Lanny