Posted by DK on 8/26/2001, 5:45 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 7/1/2001, 8:41 pm , in reply to "No matter what the Bible says???" Dave, You write 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. No—it had not been true of your postings up to that point. But remember the posting to which I was replying. In it, you had written Though my understanding makes perfect sense to me, I should go back to believing in a God who pretended to be a man and THAT was the perfect sacrifice. And though it not only doesn't make sense, it offends me -- I should simply believe it because "... God has declared it is the sacrifice He has provided." In other words, because He said so. This is what I was particularly thinking of when I wrote my own comment. You seemed to be opposing "what makes sense to me" (or "what does not offend me") to "what God said," and expressing your preference for the former. This is what I found to be a jarring note, coming from you especially, since the theme of your postings until now has seemed to be the necessity of everything lining up with scripture before you are able to find it credible. You also write 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... These attributes are not valid in your opinion to examine who Jesus is and isn't. It is not so much that I believe they are invalid, as that I believe the list is misleadingly constructed. I don't believe the verses in which those statements are found were meant for use in making a list of absolute "attributes of God" that can never be violated in any way, or that can rule out an event like the incarnation. To me, that would be like putting God in a box, something even the Chapel told us in other contexts we should not do. Take the "unchangeableness of God," for example. The Chapel teachers said that God was unchangeable and immutable, and by this they ultimately meant to say that God could in no sense become man. In the scriptures, however, God's immutability refers to his will and purpose. They clearly mean to say that God's will cannot be thwarted, and that he will not change his intent. I do not see how the context of the passages that speak of God's “unchangeableness?and immutability can be broadened to such an extent that they could rule out his becoming man if that is part of what God intended to do. For another example, take the statement "God is one." Is this an “attribute of God?(i.e, is it a statement that categorically rules out the possibility that God's nature could be three united in one) or is it simply an idiomatic statement of how many Gods there are? I think the case for the latter interpretation is just as strong, if not stronger, than the case for the first. You also write 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. That is true. For one thing, I think they are contradictions only from man's limited frame of reference, and that is not the true frame of reference. For another thing, the Bible itself seems to be less shocked at this idea than our modern day Oneness and "Jesus is not God" folks. It clearly has no scruples with presenting Jesus as God and yet showing us in a very emphatic way his suffering and death. (But yet again we cannot forget that it also shows us with equal force that the grave could not hold him.) All of this is presented simply as fact. The Lord asks me not if I approve of any of this, but only if I believe. As in John?0:25-29 (Thomas' confession and Jesus' response), there is no attention drawn to the contradictions of normal human experience presented by the events, only to the fact of their occurence and the invitation to believe them. You also write 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 I'm sorry you think that. Obviously it doesn't seem that way to me or I wouldn't believe it myself. I see myself not as choosing which of two opposing scriptures I'm going to support, but as finding the sense in which both are true. But having said that, I have to also note that your account mis-states the details of what I actually believe, or at least in this particular case when you go on to write ...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. But I do believe that the fullness of Deity actually dwells in Jesus. What I have said about Col. 2:9 (“For in him, all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form? is that it is simply, as several standard commentaries point out, the Greek idiom for Jesus fully possessing the nature of deity. It is not a statement of God dwelling physically inside of Jesus. I don't see how that contradicts "my interpretation" (i.e., the way most people have interpreted it since it was written) of Philippians?, but I have come to see how the Oneness interpretation has insurmountable difficulties no matter which way you interpret Colossians?. You also write 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 I guess some of them have been on that level for me. In the last three years of my Chapel experience I was very disturbed as I watched what was becoming of the Chapel, and I had some dreadful inner conflicts—those were dark and confusing days. It has been a refreshing experience by contrast to slowly come back into a new and stable walk with the Lord, and seeing the former turmoil in a doctrinal context has definitely been a part of it. Beliefs have had consequences both ways (good and bad) in my life. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Posted by Dave Kenady on 7/1/2001, 9:42 pm , in reply to "Re: No matter what the Bible says???" It has been a refreshing experience by contrast to slowly come back into a new and stable walk with the Lord, and seeing the former turmoil in a doctrinal context has definitely been a part of it. Beliefs have had consequences both ways (good and bad) in my life. And perhaps it is more important that you have found that stable walk with the Lord than it is that we iron out the Oneness/Trinity between us. My fondest memories at the Chapel were not of doctrinal discussions, but of those times when I was closest to Jesus. ---------- Posted by Cliff on 7/1/2001, 10:33 pm , in reply to "Re: No matter what the Bible says???" When I see scriptures that Steve B, says must mean pre-existence, or that immutable means will or intent, and a sort of derisive attitude towards those who think Jesus is a man, indwelt by God. Why do the scriptures "say" he was a man in whom God dwelt....Why are there things like Jn 14:1 you believe in God, believe in Me also? Or the disclaimer that His Father in Him does the Works? Why bother if there isn't a man with God in Him? ---------- Some answers. Posted by Steve B. on 7/2/2001, 11:32 am , in reply to "Re: No matter what the Bible says???" Cliff, You ask Why do the scriptures "say" he [Jesus] was a man in whom God dwelt...? One of my points is that the scriptures don't say that. The Chapel told us that they did, but on closer inspection I have had to conclude that it's not quite true. If allowed to stand without qualification, and if pressed to its logical conclusion, some very odd and unbiblical doctrines result. You also ask Why are there things like Jn 14:1 you believe in God, believe in Me also? Or the disclaimer that His Father in Him does the Works? Because the disciples and the others of that time were still seeing Jesus only as a man among other men. Both of those statements are ways Jesus did in fact identify himself more closely with God for the benefit of his listeners. You also ask Why bother if there isn't a man with God in Him? I “bother?because I believe the point is to come to a scriptural view of who Jesus is. I think that Don had come up with a very plausible scheme based more on (allegedly) logical conclusions than on what the scriptures actually say, but I've come to see that it really does completely break down scripturally. Regarding Jesus as a man in whom God dwells would mean Jesus himself is not really God at all. That makes it impossible to believe in the light of the other things the scriptures show us about Jesus' deity. They do not show us a Jesus who is God only in the sense that God dwells in him. They show us a Jesus who eternally possessed the nature of deity in union with the Father. That is what makes him God. Sincerely, Steve