Posted by CB on 10/4/2001, 10:50 am

Posted by Steve B. on 6/26/2001, 9:26 am , in reply to "Relationship questions" Gordy, You write 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. Two comments about this: My main point wasn't that trinitarian theology would have protected us from the abyss, but rather that UROG theology definitely played a part in leading us to that abyss. Even on the other, lesser point we will have to continue to disagree. I continue to think that if people really understood and were committed to trinitarian theology (and such people would not have been at the Chapel in the first place, of course), the teaching about “having fellowship with the glorified Son of Man” would have raised a whole field full of red flags long before we got the point of connections actually appearing. And in answer to your questions about my views of John 14:21-23— 1) Who is speaking, the human Jesus or God Jesus? There are not two Jesuses. There is only the one Jesus who is always (since he took on human nature) simultaneously both man and God. That is who was speaking. 2) In what sense do you believe the pronouns "we" and "our" are being used, literally or figuratively? Literally. 3) What does it mean when he uses the words "make our abode" or when Judas used "manifest". It means to make oneself known in spiritual fellowship, in my opinion. 4) Does this or any other scripture specifically prohibit communication between the glorified Son of Man and us? No, of course not. My objection is not to communicating with him, or even to describing Jesus as the “glorified Son of Man,” but to imagining that that is an appropriate description of him in describing who we worship or with whom we fellowship. When describing him as the “glorified Son of Man” it is important to remember that this describes only one aspect of his existence, that he is also more than that—the logos who was with God in the beginning, and who was God in the beginning. 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? Again, this question seems to be based on a misunderstanding both of trinitarianim and of my position (if one thinks there is a difference between the two—I myself am not aware of any substantial differences), so I'm not sure it makes any sense. But insofar as I can assign any meaning to it, I again stress that it is an inaccurate characterization of trinitarian doctrine to say it has two Jesuses, a “human Jesus” and a “God Jesus.” There is only one Jesus, and communication with him is certainly not prohibited but rather encouraged. I think that some of your misunderstandings come from the Chapel's dual nature doctrine. The picture presented by it was of a “person of deity” (God) dwelling in a “person of humanity” (the man Jesus). (And since this—to my surprise—was once challenged on this board, I pause to note that these are the words used to teach the Chapel's dual nature doctrine in the Bible college's Introduction to Unfolding Revelation of God class that I took in the spring of 1981.) Because trinitarians also have a dual nature doctrine, it is easy to come away from the Chapel thinking it is analogous to the Chapel's, but that the trinitarian doctrine is wrong in the fact that it posits a non-existent "second person of the Trinity." That is, it's easy to assume that the Trinitarian dual nature doctrine means that trinitarians also think a person of deity dwells inside the man Jesus, but that they are mistaken in thinking this person of deity is “God the Son” instead of being simply God. But that's not the trinitarian dual nature doctrine. The trinitarian dual nature doctrine has nothing to do with one person dwelling inside of another person. The trinitarian dual nature doctrine comes from Philippians 2 and teaches that Jesus, having already the nature of God from all eternity, also took on human nature by being born of a woman. One unique person therefore has two natures—the nature of man and the nature of God. There are not two persons there that can somehow speak, or with whom we can fellowship, independent of the other. The Father is indeed in Jesus (and Jesus is in the Father), but this is not what makes Jesus God. Jesus is God because he has always had the nature of God. But at his human birth he became truly and fully human as well—as John 1 says, the logos that was with God and that was God became flesh. This should not cause us to lose focus of the fact that this same one has been intimately and inseparably united from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that is why when we fellowship with Jesus we also fellowship with the Father and the Spirit. In other words, I agree with the trinitarians you know who characterized this verse as “the second person of the triune God referring to the first person of the triune God.” What you apparently don't understand about trinitarian doctrine is that when trinitarians refer to “the second person of the trinity,” they mean a person who is both God and man, if they are speaking of something he did after his human birth. 7) If the humanity of Jesus is not to be considered in the above verses, why not? I have no objection to the humanity of Jesus being considered. My objection is to treating Jesus as if he is limited to human existence, or to the refusal to take the scriptural descriptions of his deity into account. I believe that when one tries to worship or fellowship with a merely human Jesus (even a resurrected and glorified one), one is badly off track because such a person does not exist. One is trafficking with “another Jesus” to one's own spiritual harm. The Chapel demonstrated this in a rather spectacular fashion. You also ask By the way Steve, do you believe Don ever had a call from God to start the minsitry known as Community Chapel? No, I don't. I think the whole Latter Rain movement (in which Don received that original “call” to “teach the newborn”) is badly misguided, built upon false doctrine, and rife with false prophecies. (Perhaps I can borrow a good phrase from you from almost the same context, and also say that I feel it is indeed dominated by people who are “esoteric in communication and mannerisms.”) It should not be a surprise therefore (and especially in view of the end of that ministry) to find that I regard Don's call to the ministry as false. But I also believe that wherever the Word is preached it will bear fruit, and that in spite of being built on a flawed foundation, the Chapel preached a lot of the Word. The good at the Chapel was due to the fact that we were sincerely, as a group, eager to hear the Word, trying to live the Word, and spending a lot of time in prayer and in study of the Word. But because we did not have a firm enough basis to clearly identify what was and what was not the Word, we were susceptible to deception when it came. Sincerely, Steve