Posted by CB on 10/4/2001, 10:51 am

Spiritual & Soulical #777 Posted by Steve M on 6/26/2001, 10:05 pm , in reply to "Re: Relationship questions" I have enjoyed the discussion and appreciated the civil tone, which hasn't always been evident when these subjects have been broached. It seems to me that Gordy's point, which he has made before, that disobedience leads to deception, is extremely relevant and beyond dispute. On the other hand, I agree with Steve B. about the contribution of our "glorified Son of Man" doctrine's contribution to our particular deception, with qualification. If we had adhered to a more orthodox Christology, I think Steve B is right in beleving that we would not have succumbed to the deception of spiritual connections. Our Christology was a factor in the outward form the deception took, but was not (contrary to what I hear Steve B. saying) the root cause of the deception. Were we trinitarian, we simply would have fallen for some other deception. Examples of groups not commonly accused of deviant Christology who fell into gross deception: PTL, Zion City, and the wilderness church under Aaron. If Calvin were non-Trinatarian, he would still have been a tyrant - maybe Knox would have been roasted instead of Servetus. **** And now, here is Spiritual and Soulical Relationships, #777 ;-). Much more influential in our fall, in my view, was a Gnostic understanding of humanity. (I'm assuming a trichotomy view of man rather than a dichotomy.) By this I mean the complete emphasis on our spirits, accompanied by the despising of our souls. Music had to be spiritual, never soulical - though the psalmist said, "Bless the Lord, oh my SOUL." Relationships should be spiritual, though the Bible actually supports soulical relationships. Kenneth Hagin and other "faith" teachers explicitly teach that man is a spirit, and has a soul. My recollection is that DB taught the reverse. Nevertheless, the effect of the constant emphasis on SPIRIT-UAL vs. SOULICAL was to put us in a mindset that we were primarily spirit beings, created to perpetually soar into exhilirating experiences, while our soul was to be locked in the attic with our crazy aunt. Scripture does speak against soulish wisdom, and even against one seeking to save his soul (life). But Scripture also speaks of the redemption of the soul, and of unity among the souls in the church. I submit that the purpose of spiritual experiences, exhilirating or otherwise, is to transform the soul. We are born again in our spirits - transformed, redeemed, and sanctified in our souls. Working out our salvation means yielding our soul to the influence of the Holy Spirit through our renewed spirits - not so as to constantly be in a state of ecsasy or union with someone else's spirit, but so that we, as SOULS, become like Christ, having seen Him as He is. It is our souls that should benefit from us soaring in the spirit; and as we grow the emphasis should change from soaring in the spirit to abiding, as souls, in Him. The soaring of the spirit is to bring the soul to the place of abiding. Other Scriptural analogies apply as well. It is the soul that is called to return to the tree of life. Our born again spirit is already alive. God wants our souls to become alive, and continually eat from the tree of life, rather than the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The more we mature, the less esoteric our life should be - that is we don't just soar, we abide. Those who, on a continual basis, simultaneously move into esoteric spiritual experiences AND exhort others to do so as well, are not really participating with Christ in the redemption of their own souls. Steve B's quote from Barbara's book is a tragic example of this. The Chapel is not the only place where a Gnostic view of man prevailed. Try talking to someone who is deeply entrenched in the "word-faith" movement. One such person gave me a tract which informed me that I am just a spirit being in an earth suit. When I told him of a physical problem, he exhorted me to not make such a confession, but to say that I didn't have the condition, just the symptoms. Another group held an interesting doctrine which is summarized as "flesh and spirit". The upshot of this doctrine is that everything human - body, soul, and (human) spirit is "flesh" and must die, leaving only "spirit", that being Jesus, alive. A good friend from this group did chuckle when I asked if this didn't make Jesus into some kind of benevolent body snatcher. Never got a response when I pointed out that it is the DEEDS of the flesh, not the flesh per se, that the Bible says to mortify. Walk (not fly) in the Spirit, and you won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Thanks, SM ---------- Re: Some more thoughts... Posted by lanny on 6/26/2001, 8:27 pm , in reply to "Some more thoughts..." I don't for a moment think the Chapel's demise brings ANY reproach upon the oneness. It is as if WE were somehow the guardians of this great truth!!! That is hardly the case. Many have believed it long before us and will continue to believe it long after we are gone. We bring more reproach upon Christ himself than any particular doctrine. The oneness didn't need us to be true. It is still going to be a major issue in the church and is coming out more and more. Just as we were thrilled to see it, so will many millions in the future. God simply will not leave the trinity heresy alone forever. Back around the turn of the century there was a move of God under John A. Dowie. It got into trouble and people were scattered. You could sit around for years analyzing what went wrong and going over every doctrine. You might decide it was because of the miraculous and thus conclude that was false doctrine. Or you might look to Dowie and blame him. My point is that there are many reasons why groups of Christians get into trouble and hindsight is not always 20/20. Regarding the "son of man" experience, trinitarians could experience that. I can't see how that has anything to do with the price of tea in China. I personally have not reflected on "what went wrong" and what of CC should I get rid of. Rather I am trying to go on with the spirit of God to "cross over Jordan" and fulfill His calling. If we can learn from the past, great! But purging the past will not get you into Canaan. God is doing something RIGHT NOW that is important for me to be a part of. I believe that is an entirely wrong premise for discerning truth. lanny ---------- Still more thoughts... Posted by Steve B. on 6/27/2001, 8:12 am , in reply to "Re: Some more thoughts..." Lanny, So we're supposed to analyze Trinitarian doctrine in regard to its origin, mistakes, and negative effects, but we shouldn't analyze Oneness doctrine in the same way? No thank you. As I've pointed out before, that would be a double standard. At the Chapel we were very thorough in studying the Trinity, examining its origin, explaining why it hindered us from becoming part of the Bride, and spelling out many other reasons why we thought it was so bad. But when a person comes to the Oneness doctrine, this love of analysis is supposed to stop? Isn't that kind of strange? If studying doctrine in an attempt to find the most Biblical is a good thing, then we shouldn't be selective in our choice of subject. If we are, that points to an unexamined bias instead of a pure love of the truth. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by lanny on 6/30/2001, 11:48 am , in reply to "Still more thoughts..." I have no objection to an evaluation of any doctrine. However, if the motivation behind the evaluation is because of the Chapel's demise I think it is misguided. lanny ---------- Re: Some more thoughts...A clarification may be useful Posted by Gordy on 6/27/2001, 6:36 pm , in reply to "Re: Some more thoughts..." To Lanny and all: I think we need to consider the vast differences between the"Oneness" as we referred to ourselves at the Chapel and that of the other mainstream Oneness group. The predominate Oneness group in the U.S. is the UPC. I know of no other organized group that had/has the "Oneness" doctrine as that of the Chapel. There is wide gulf of difference between UPC Oneness and that which was taught at CCBTC. The UPC believes Christ was only a shell, thing or an it, a hunk of human flesh that only existed for the habitation of God's Spirit while on earth. It is my opinion that doctrine denies the Son of God. I certainly will not judge the individual's heart who proclaims such doctrine but the doctrine itself denies the human son of Yahweh was truly human. When pressed they reluctantly will admit there is some humanity there besides just flesh and bones but are very vague. They run in circles almost as much as Trintarian apologists. They maintain it was God's blood, literally, that was shed on the cross, again denying the sacrifice of the only mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. So, "Oneness" certainly has existed prior to the Chapel and will continue to exist long after but we should be aware of the drastic differences between the Chapel and UPC Oneness doctrines. I would be interested in knowing if there is a group anywhere that has absolutley no affiliation, past or present, with the Chapel that has the same Oneness doctrine. Anyone? I assume Don had his theology handed down from Russ, at least to a significant degree, but there must be others in the chain somewhere. Where are they if they exist? Gordy