Posted by CB on 10/4/2001, 10:46 am

Posted by CB on 8/15/2001, 1:20 pm To each his own... Posted by Steve B. on 6/23/2001, 3:30 pm , in reply to "Re: Some more thoughts..." Dave, 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. I prefer a theology that makes Biblical sense to me, not merely something that doesn't violate somebody else's theory about who the Son of God can or cannot be. In other words, to me, the things you say about the Trinity are caricatures born of an unreasoning anger, and are not based on an accurate knowledge of the doctrine. They don't correspsond to what I myself hear knowledgeable Trinitarians saying about God. I myself find the trinitarian doctrine to be very reasonable, and to be the only consistent explanation I've found for everything the scriptures say about God and Jesus. On the other hand, the more I look at what the Chapel taught (and the things its heirs, both legitimate and illegitimate, are teaching nowdays), the more I discover not only problems and oddities of scriptural interpretation, but outright falsehoods like those blatant alterations of scholarly sources for the Oneness history document. And of course, I know you guys don't like hearing this either, but I do think I can clearly see how Oneness (or UROG theology) got us involved in connections. Or at least set us up perfectly for the fall when the time came. I think I've largely completed my search for answers about what to do and what to believe now that the Chapel has passed from the scene (not that this means I won't continue to post). May the Lord continue to bless you in your own search. Sincerely, Steve ---------- I'll tell you what is REALLY weird..... Posted by Dave Kenady on 6/23/2001, 2:23 pm , in reply to "Re: Some more thoughts..." is remembering back way before connections. Remember Don and Barbara occasionally mentioning the "wave of God's love" which will be coming one day, "It's just around the corner, only the corner is bigger than we thought." I wonder what was brewing in their minds all those years. They knew something I didn't know. And look what finally came. ---------- Re: Not a Pied Piper... Posted by Keith on 6/23/2001, 10:04 pm , in reply to "Some more thoughts..." ... but a relationship, God and man working together. A perfect God Who has a seemingly imperfect creation looked forward and saw Jesus and his desire to do all things the Father tells Him and a life of love that is totally beyond our comprehension. Consider Col 1:19-20. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. God said to Jesus prophetically, let us make man in our image after our likeness. The NT parallels are incredible, it make sense, it fits, it shows a perfect God that created mankind and found a way through mankind through love to bring us to Him. The Trinity? The 2nd Person becoming man, it didn't happen, theres no way, not after reading this. Remember it says "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him," There is only one God, the him has to be someone other than God. Steve wouldn't you (couldn't you) say its at least reasonable to come to this conclusion? I used to think you were playing devils advocate and seeing how well you could argue the other side, it's still hard to believe that's not the case. I'll keep repeating the same old things over and over, eventually I think you can be brainwashed again (with the truth). ---------- Replies Posted by Steve B. on 6/24/2001, 9:36 am , in reply to "Re: Not a Pied Piper..." Keith, You ask Steve wouldn't you (couldn't you) say its at least reasonable to come to this conclusion? Of course—remember that I believed Oneness doctrine myself for nearly twenty years. It's a very plausible-sounding theory about the relationship between God and Jesus. However, in the last few years I've been becoming more and more aware of how it contains crucial mistakes in interpreting what the scriptures show us. Additionally, I found that most of what the Chapel told us about trinitarian doctrine was really a caricature (if not outright false) and did not really reflect its nature. You also write I used to think you were playing devils advocate and seeing how well you could argue the other side, it's still hard to believe that's not the case. No, I'm not playing devil's advocate. I wouldn't spend the time that I do on this if that's all I were doing. In my very early postings on this subject more than a year ago there may have been a minor element of that (playing the devil's advocate) in my postings, but now what I write reflects what I genuinely think about it. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Relationship Posted by Gordy on 6/24/2001, 9:04 pm , in reply to "Some more thoughts..." Steve: You and I have entered into disagreement over the "relationship" many times in the past. For those new to this debate I will recount a couple of things for their benefit. I stopped accepting the Chapel's Oneness theology several years prior to connections and my departure. The nearest point in time that I can peg as the time my theology changed is the summer of 1980. The Chapel was not a place that welcomed "errant" views, ie, views contrary to those of Don. I mostly kept to myself other than brief discussions I had with Rick Cameron and Mark Yokers. By the way, I came to the conclusions I did by simply reading the scriptures and much prayer. As for the "relationship" you speak of between Chapel Christology, connections and disappearing act, at first glance I may be adding weight to your argument by pointing that I NEVER accepted, partook of, or apologized for connections as being biblical or of God in any sense. I was not a Chapel Oneness adherent remember. I didn't buy connections from the get go and go I did. I was probably one of the very first people to leave the Chapel that had attended and been a part for many years prior to connections and the "wave of love". Was it my theology that kept me from the abyss? I doubt you could or would admit my current theology has any merit, but, if there truly is a relationship between the rampant deception and the christology the Chapel held, then I would point out that someone with my theology wasn't deceived, that being me. I don't think anyone that held Trinitarian theology (more on that following) has the same record. In fact, I know of nobody holding my current theology that fell for such an easily discerned Emperor has no clothes scenario. Do you? If I recall correctly, there were a couple of people posting here previously that admitted they never really gave up their Catholic (or daughters of) Trintarian views on the Godhead but were involved in the gros deception of connections. One could surmise from those posts that Trinitarianism was no defense. Now admittedly, I didn't come to the conclusion that connections were evil and not of God as a direct result of my theology. This is why I don't think theology had much to do with the resulting deception. To me it was simply obvious that connections were evil. Even those in the world could figure that out with very little conscious effort and many did. Pride and disobedience sown caused deception to be reaped. I believe it is that simple, the law of sowing and reaping clearly and powerfully demonstrated. The more disobedience reigned the greater the deception became. I frankly don't see how any christological view would have kept someone safe from deception. We had Oneness and trinitarians fall into the connections deception. I have no idea why I was spared but by the grace of Yahweh. History is littered with mass deception by Trinitarians as well as every other group. Obedience is the best defense against deception, not mainstream christology. Gordy