Posted by CB on 10/4/2001, 10:49 am

Relationship questions Posted by Gordy on 6/25/2001, 7:01 pm , in reply to "Re: Relationship" Steve: I don't see where I am misunderstanding your assertion. I simply addressed the fact that at least a few with Trinitarian theology also fell into the abyss, therefore illustrating that Trinitarian theology would have been little if any protection against the deception that nuked the Chapel's Oneness adherents. In retrospect, I suspect that many that were involved had no idea of what they were really trying to accomplish. Sure, the voice of the pulpit did elaborate on the Son of man aspects but I still don't see why that would dictate the Son of man, or more specifically communion with the Son of man, is the culprit. Many weirdos have used relgious doctrine to justify their lust and disobedience. The Chapel certainly didn't have the market cornered on that commodity!!!! Also, connections were most assuredly in existence prior to my departure. I fully understand the doctrine. Connections are the reason I left. I was also in contact with many people during the whole shameful time. Shortly after one of the senior elders and his wife left I had quite a bit of contact with them for several months. I was keenly aware of the goings on through contacts I was able to maintain. I took all of the UROG Bible College classes and am fully aware of and understand the Chapel's theology regarding the Godhead/Son of Man. I hardly consider the glorified Son of man aspects of that theology to have caused any more strangeness than those who claim God, Mary or Jesus told them to do terrible things including murder over the last several centuries. I don't think we ever discussed the following portion of scripture. John 14:21-23 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Oneness struggles with this section of scripture but Trinitarians usually don't. My question to you is: 1) Who is speaking, the human Jesus or God Jesus? 2) In what sense do you believe the pronouns "we" and "our" are being used, literally or figuratively? 3) What does it mean when he uses the words "make our abode" or when Judas used "manifest". 4) Does this or any other scripture specifically prohibit communication between the glorified Son of Man and us? If so, where? If you believe (and I repeat if) that communication between the man Christ and us is prohibited, how do you deal with the "man Christ Jesus" as the one mediator between men and God? Is the "man Christ Jesus" only symbolic and not meant to be literal? If only symbolic, explain. 6) Somewhat redundant, but, what are the limitations or prohibitions you believe there are in communication with the man Christ Jesus whether or not you have a scriptural case for believing so? 7) If the humanity of Jesus is not to be considered in the above verses, why not? Some Trinitarians I have discussed this portion of scripture with merely state it is the second person of the triune God referring to the first person of the triune God. These were not lay people. In reality, I believe the Trinitarian position has a more logical position than UPC Oneness, and to an extent even the Chapel's version of Oneness, in explaining these particular verses. The obvious point of my disagreement with the Trinitarian adherents is in the assumed premise of there being more than one person of God. I must say it once more. Trinitarianism has no historical record of keeping it's adherents out of cults, false doctrine, any number of assorted absurdities or even atrocities. Mediocrity and disobedience have been the major causes of failure of various movements, at least to the extent I am aware currently. The "Son of man" doctrine could hardly measure up to the disobedience the world has witnessed in mainstream religious Trinitarian America even if one blames it for the fall of the Chapel or others. I still think it is a real stretch to link the glorfied Son of man doctrine to the sin that so easily beset the Chapel. I believe the fall of the Chapel to be no more linked to it's Godhead theology than the theology of of those in mainstream religions that have fallen. By the way Steve, do you believe Don ever had a call from God to start the minsitry known as Community Chapel? If you don't want to answer publicly, please EM me. I don't recall ever reading your thoughts on that question. By the way, I always thought Barbara was "out there" from the very first day I visited the place. That includes the time prior to the Son of man doctrine's popularity or manifestation. That doesn't mean I disliked her but only felt she was somewhat, let's say, esoteric in her communication and mannerisms. I give lots of space to those who are exhuberant in the things of God even if I sense confusion and/or fanatacism mixed in. I just stay settled. reserved or quiet until such time as reason and truth prevails, or at least until there is hope for them to prevail. I left the Chapel when I realized that even the slightest nudge toward reasonableness was immediately proclaimed to be demonic. It became manifest that if simple reasonableness was violently shunned the chance of truth ever prevailing was hopeless. Gordy