Wierwille was far from the first person to come up with the notion that Jesus Christ is a perfect man whose existence began at birth. If you go to Biblical Unitarians, you should be able to find evidence that other groups did teach the same thing.
Of course, teaching the same thing is not plagiarism.
If I may be allowed to speculate: Wierwille's first major challenge on the Trinity came not from Biblical study, but from the unusual position of BG Leonard, who taught that Jesus Christ was not God, but that God basically took over (so to speak) Jesus Christ during his ministry. Thus, when Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am," that was God talking. But when Jesus said "My father is greater than I," that was Jesus Christ talking.
Confused? Yeah, so was Wierwille, I'm betting. The prospect of a distinction between Christ and God being new to him, I believe Wierwille began his walk away from the Trinity after encountering Leonard's doctrine on the subject.
Ultimately, Wierwille and Leonard did not agree. But there's evidence that Leonard started Wierwille down the path.
As for plagiarism in JCING, I see a little (not a lot) of evidence. The wording of the idea of God fertilizing an egg in Mary's womb comes from Leonard. So does the "formed, made, created" paradigm and the circular definition "a substance is required of which the thing made consists."
And that was a most fascinating response from you, Sir Rafael! Thank you. For some reason I wasn't expecting B.G. Leonard to come up as an influence in this, but now that you've mentioned it, I shouldn't be surpised.
I apparently need to pick up some more of Leonard's writings and acquaint myself better with his ideas.
I have Stile's book wherein the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a being or a person, but I hadn't really delved into Leonard's view here. The only thing I have by Leonard is a poor photocopy of one of his courses (containing many familiar "Advanced Class" meanings to the spiritual gifts) that was going around circ. 1987, when many leaving the Way had taken especial interest in reviewing the VP's "originals".
As I recall, those definitions were almost identical. Which all the more provokes me to wonder what VPW's primary source was behind JCING. Did he copy/cobble entire passages from another work, as was his custom?
It would be a hoot to find out what that work was. Perhaps one also needs to examine the sources that influenced Leonard.
Maybe on Leonard's and VP's shelves was a book by some unknown unitarian author (published or unpublished).
Remember also that the Research Department did an awful lot of writing for VPW, so it's possible JCNG wasn't plagiarized to the same extent as PFAL or RHST.
There certainly would appear to be a pattern of less plagiarism (or more creative plagiarism) in the later works like JCOP and JCOPS, when he got the teams working on all that stuff. But I wonder - did he have a together-enough, active "research" team back in 1975 (or earlier), when he put together JCING?
Well let me then just add this question to the mix, for anyone who might passing by this thread: are there any former researchers, or "team members" here, who worked on a prepress manuscript of "Jesus Christ is Not God?" Please, please, please - share your experiences.
We should also note that although it was published separately (foolishly), JCING DOES have a bibliography, which would almost by definition negate charges of plagiarism (especially if you're relying on a definition that's not so strict).
Publishing the bibliography separately was one of TWI's most perplexing moves.
Brother Leonard's book regarding the Godhead is called "The Water in the Bottle" "the Godhead". The most recent edition put out by CTC of Texas was subtitled, hence the second title. What's available now is not exactly his original work. It's been altered ever so slightly. Interesting work though. You can draw your own conclusions from it.
Wierwille didn't write it. It was a team that came up with the conclusions that Wierwille mandated. Hence, the writing seems better than Wierwille's plaigarized works.
I theorize that Leonard had some influence in this regard insofar as he didn't believe in the Trinity. But he wasn't a source for the book, I'm confident. Wierwille still believed in the Trinity in the early 60's, long after his exposure to Leonard. Saw it in an old way mag.
Leonard's conception of the Godhead is, I think, quite similar (though not the same as) Oneness Pentecostals.
As I recall, JCING was footnoted, crediting authors such as Hislop, who wrote The Two babylons.
Some chapters were published before being included in JCING, such as the pamphlet One God which became the chapter on John chapter one, after having been included in The Word's Way.
I concur with the remarks about a "research team". Compare the writing style of the early collaterals to JCING, Jesus Christ Our Passover and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Your remarks concerning B.G. Leonard's unusual views and especially the "Oneness Pentecostals" have proven quite fruitful. It's now very easy to see where Wierwille might have been initially exposed to (and subsequently picked up) many of his anti-Trinitarian ideas and arguments - from the modalist ideas in circulation among the Pentecostal movements (like that of William Branham), where naturally, he was accustomed to fishing for ideas on tongues and gifts of the Spirit.
The modalistic ideas of the "Oneness Pentecostals" are quite fascinating indeed.
I'm reading the Branham critique. This is fascinating. He was, as I suspected, a 'hillbilly', not that this judges him one way or another.
He believed Eve's sin was sexual in nature.
He believed he was the special envoy to restore "Bible truth".
Holy cow, now I'm listening to his broadcast. He does sound 'hick' but definitely intelligent. Offhand, I hear more connections to Wierwille than I do Leonard. Especially in the sense that both claimed a unique position in the history of the church (like it hasn't been known since the 1st century, etc), something Leonard never did, afaik.
These people are not Arians, def. They believe Jesus Christ is God.
quote:Instead of three Persons in the Godhead, Branham taught that there was only one Person (Jesus) going under different titles or modes at various times in history. Branham's teaching is a variation of a second century heresy taught by Sabellius know as Modalistic Monarchianism or Patripassianism (see Monarchianism, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, pp. 727-28).
The Council of Nicea was not formed to put a stop to Arianism. That was its result. Its purpose was to unify doctrine, which it did by establishing the divinity of Christ.
Son of Man - The title Son of Man was Jesus' favorite way of referring to Himself. He may have done this because this was not a recognized title already known by the people and associated with popular ideas. This title means essentially "The Man." But as Jesus used it, it took on new significance.
Jesus applied this title to Himself in three distinct ways:
First, He used the title in a general way, almost as a substitute for the pronoun "I." A good example of this usage occurred in the saying where Jesus contrasted John the Baptist, who "came neither eating bread nor drinking wine," with the Son of Man, who "has come eating and drinking" (Luke 7:33-34). Another probable example is the statement that "the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" (Luke 9:58). In this instance He warned a would-be disciple that those who wanted to follow Him must expect to share His homeless existence.
Second, Jesus used the title to emphasize that "the Son of Man must suffer" (Mark 8:31). The word must implies that His suffering was foretold by the prophets. It was, indeed, "written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt" (Mark 9:12). So when Jesus announced the presence of the betrayer at the Last Supper, He declared, "The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him" (Mark 14:21). Later on the same evening He submitted to His captors with the words, "The Scriptures must be fulfilled" (Mark 14:49).
Finally, Jesus used the title Son of Man to refer to Himself as the one who exercised exceptional authority-authority delegated to Him by God. "The Son of Man has power [authority] on earth to forgive sins" (Mark 2:10), He declared. He exercised this authority in a way that made some people criticize Him for acting with the authority of God: "The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28).
The Son of Man appeared to speak and act in these cases as the representative man. If God had given man dominion over all the works of His hands, then He who was the Son of Man in this special representative sense was in a position to exercise that dominion.
Near the end of His ministry, Jesus spoke of His authority as the Son of Man at the end of time. Men and women "will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory," He declared (Mark 13:26). He also stated to the high priest and other members of the supreme court of Israel: "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62). He seemed deserted and humiliated as He stood there awaiting their verdict. But the tables would be turned when they saw Him vindicated by God as Ruler and Judge of all the world.
Only once in the Gospels was Jesus referred to as the Son of Man by anyone other than Himself. This occurred when Stephen, condemned by the Jewish SANHEDRIN, saw "the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56). In Stephen's vision the Son of Man stood as his heavenly advocate, in fulfillment of Jesus' words: "Whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8).
From what I read, the heresy of Arius was a direct threat to the church and the council was called by Constantine, who initally favored Arius, and then the mood the of council changed when the orthodox church prevailed.
for anyone who is interested, check this site.
It's an article called "A Hammer Struck At Heresy"
What exactly happened at the famous Council of Nicea, when the Roman emperor convened some 250 quarreling Christian bishops?
quote:That's why the Council of Nicea was covened — to put an end to his heresy (Arianism).
Then you said the person who called the council favored the Arian position at first. Does it sound like he called the council to put an end to the position he favored?
Point is, the people in Invisible Dan's links are not Arians, but more like Sabellians, a whole different heresy.
It doesn't bother me that you believe in the Trinity. I'm not out to change your mind. You've heard all the arguments already, as have I.
Along with Arians (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) and Socinians (e.g. Wierwille, Wayfers, CES-types), adherents of Oneness Theology deny the eternal existence and divine person of the Son.
Oneness theology is a form of Unitarianism.
One fellow who seems to have some apologetic focus on Oneness Theology has characterized early Sabellianism as "successive modalism" (i.e. the notion that the Father became the Son who became the Holy Spirit), while characterizing the dogma of present-day Oneness adherents as "simultaneous modalism."
"Oneness" theologians do NOT deny the divinity of Christ.
They affirm that He is God. What they deny is that God is tri-personal. In other words, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different manifestations or expressions of ONE person, as opposed to three persons making up ONE God.
XXXX
I'm just rambling now, you can skip this if you'd like:
Cynic, when you say that Oneness theologians "deny the divine person of the Son," I think you're being, unintentionally, misleading. That's why I wanted to clarify what you said.
For the oneness theologians, Jesus Christ is God. The Father is God. Jesus Christ is the Father. The Father is the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
They deny Christ as a person separate from the Father, so in that sense I get what you're saying. But you made it sound like they don't believe Jesus Christ is God, so I wanted to make that a little more clear.
I figured I would wind up explaining that assertion.
By asserting that adherents of Oneness Theology deny "the divine person of the Son," I was attempting to communicate that Oneness adherents deny the Son has identity as a divine person. They confine what it meant that Jesus Christ was the Son of God to a human existence having a beginning.
Their view involves a tension between holding that Jesus Christ was the Son of God (in their dogma, a mere human figure who did not exist before conception and birth) and holding that Jesus Christ was God the Father.
Consequently, in their theology, Jesus' prayers are characterized as dialogues between his human and divine natures.
The fellow I mentioned as having some apologetic focus on Oneness Theology has a website (http://www.christiandefense.com) with information about Oneness dogma.
I previously decided against posting a link to that website because of this statement which I happened upon there:
---------------
"Even more, the ontological distinction between the Persons of the Trinity is well observed in constructions where the article is repeated before all of the personal nouns."
There is NO ontological distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In informed and orthodox Trinitarianism, the distinctions are personal, NOT ontological.
What does that mean? In part, as D. A. Reed -- among others -- lucidly maintains, it means the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are THREE WHOs, but ONE WHAT. Undivided.
It appears, after some perusal of that website, however, that the statement about there being an ontological distinction among the three divine persons was an aberration.
The following statements reveal a much more solid grasp of an orthodox Trinitarian view of God:
---------------
"Historically the Christian church has always and tenaciously taught there is one true God ontologically (by nature) who alone is eternal and uncreated. The very foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is ontological monotheism: There exist three coequal, coeternal, and codistinct Persons or Selves that share the nature of the one Being."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
10
8
7
Popular Days
Nov 5
9
Dec 17
8
Feb 15
5
Feb 13
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 11 posts
TheInvisibleDan 10 posts
def59 8 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
Popular Days
Nov 5 2003
9 posts
Dec 17 2004
8 posts
Feb 15 2004
5 posts
Feb 13 2004
5 posts
Raf
Wierwille was far from the first person to come up with the notion that Jesus Christ is a perfect man whose existence began at birth. If you go to Biblical Unitarians, you should be able to find evidence that other groups did teach the same thing.
Of course, teaching the same thing is not plagiarism.
If I may be allowed to speculate: Wierwille's first major challenge on the Trinity came not from Biblical study, but from the unusual position of BG Leonard, who taught that Jesus Christ was not God, but that God basically took over (so to speak) Jesus Christ during his ministry. Thus, when Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am," that was God talking. But when Jesus said "My father is greater than I," that was Jesus Christ talking.
Confused? Yeah, so was Wierwille, I'm betting. The prospect of a distinction between Christ and God being new to him, I believe Wierwille began his walk away from the Trinity after encountering Leonard's doctrine on the subject.
Ultimately, Wierwille and Leonard did not agree. But there's evidence that Leonard started Wierwille down the path.
As for plagiarism in JCING, I see a little (not a lot) of evidence. The wording of the idea of God fertilizing an egg in Mary's womb comes from Leonard. So does the "formed, made, created" paradigm and the circular definition "a substance is required of which the thing made consists."
Interesting question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
And that was a most fascinating response from you, Sir Rafael! Thank you. For some reason I wasn't expecting B.G. Leonard to come up as an influence in this, but now that you've mentioned it, I shouldn't be surpised.
I apparently need to pick up some more of Leonard's writings and acquaint myself better with his ideas.
I have Stile's book wherein the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a being or a person, but I hadn't really delved into Leonard's view here. The only thing I have by Leonard is a poor photocopy of one of his courses (containing many familiar "Advanced Class" meanings to the spiritual gifts) that was going around circ. 1987, when many leaving the Way had taken especial interest in reviewing the VP's "originals".
Danny
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Perhaps when I get home I can post Wierwille's definitions of the manifestations side by side with Leonard's definitions of the gifts of the spirit.
But anyway, that's a bit different from JCING.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Rafael -
As I recall, those definitions were almost identical. Which all the more provokes me to wonder what VPW's primary source was behind JCING. Did he copy/cobble entire passages from another work, as was his custom?
It would be a hoot to find out what that work was. Perhaps one also needs to examine the sources that influenced Leonard.
Maybe on Leonard's and VP's shelves was a book by some unknown unitarian author (published or unpublished).
Danny
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Remember also that the Research Department did an awful lot of writing for VPW, so it's possible JCNG wasn't plagiarized to the same extent as PFAL or RHST.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
That's a good point, Zix.
There certainly would appear to be a pattern of less plagiarism (or more creative plagiarism) in the later works like JCOP and JCOPS, when he got the teams working on all that stuff. But I wonder - did he have a together-enough, active "research" team back in 1975 (or earlier), when he put together JCING?
Well let me then just add this question to the mix, for anyone who might passing by this thread: are there any former researchers, or "team members" here, who worked on a prepress manuscript of "Jesus Christ is Not God?" Please, please, please - share your experiences.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We should also note that although it was published separately (foolishly), JCING DOES have a bibliography, which would almost by definition negate charges of plagiarism (especially if you're relying on a definition that's not so strict).
Publishing the bibliography separately was one of TWI's most perplexing moves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
That is very bizarre.
I see on p.177 that "428 other books are in a bibliography. If you would like a copy of this, please write..."
(lol) I wonder if they would still send me this bibliography if I requested it...
Harve?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Hey guys,
Brother Leonard's book regarding the Godhead is called "The Water in the Bottle" "the Godhead". The most recent edition put out by CTC of Texas was subtitled, hence the second title. What's available now is not exactly his original work. It's been altered ever so slightly. Interesting work though. You can draw your own conclusions from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Wierwille didn't write it. It was a team that came up with the conclusions that Wierwille mandated. Hence, the writing seems better than Wierwille's plaigarized works.
I theorize that Leonard had some influence in this regard insofar as he didn't believe in the Trinity. But he wasn't a source for the book, I'm confident. Wierwille still believed in the Trinity in the early 60's, long after his exposure to Leonard. Saw it in an old way mag.
Leonard's conception of the Godhead is, I think, quite similar (though not the same as) Oneness Pentecostals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As I recall, JCING was footnoted, crediting authors such as Hislop, who wrote The Two babylons.
Some chapters were published before being included in JCING, such as the pamphlet One God which became the chapter on John chapter one, after having been included in The Word's Way.
I concur with the remarks about a "research team". Compare the writing style of the early collaterals to JCING, Jesus Christ Our Passover and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Rafael and theEvan -
Your remarks concerning B.G. Leonard's unusual views and especially the "Oneness Pentecostals" have proven quite fruitful. It's now very easy to see where Wierwille might have been initially exposed to (and subsequently picked up) many of his anti-Trinitarian ideas and arguments - from the modalist ideas in circulation among the Pentecostal movements (like that of William Branham), where naturally, he was accustomed to fishing for ideas on tongues and gifts of the Spirit.
The modalistic ideas of the "Oneness Pentecostals" are quite fascinating indeed.
A couple links of interest.
From the Modalistic position:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/p...tal/One-Top.htm
Against the Modalistic position:
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-modalism.htm
A critique of William Branham and his Modalism -
http://www.watchman.org/profile/branpro.htm
William Branham sermons (textfiles):
http://www.livingwordbroadcast.org/WBTextIndex/index.htm
Thanks.
Danny
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on December 21, 2003 at 3:10.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Oh man.
I'm reading the Branham critique. This is fascinating. He was, as I suspected, a 'hillbilly', not that this judges him one way or another.
He believed Eve's sin was sexual in nature.
He believed he was the special envoy to restore "Bible truth".
Holy cow, now I'm listening to his broadcast. He does sound 'hick' but definitely intelligent. Offhand, I hear more connections to Wierwille than I do Leonard. Especially in the sense that both claimed a unique position in the history of the church (like it hasn't been known since the 1st century, etc), something Leonard never did, afaik.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Sounds like all these guys were disciples of Arius.
He promoted the idea that Jesus was a man way back in the third or fourth century A.D.
That's why the Council of Nicea was covened — to put an end to his heresy.
If you want more, go to Christianity Today's Web site and a look up their critique of the DaVinci Code.,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
These people are not Arians, def. They believe Jesus Christ is God.
The Council of Nicea was not formed to put a stop to Arianism. That was its result. Its purpose was to unify doctrine, which it did by establishing the divinity of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
JESUS CHRIST
Son of Man - The title Son of Man was Jesus' favorite way of referring to Himself. He may have done this because this was not a recognized title already known by the people and associated with popular ideas. This title means essentially "The Man." But as Jesus used it, it took on new significance.
Jesus applied this title to Himself in three distinct ways:
First, He used the title in a general way, almost as a substitute for the pronoun "I." A good example of this usage occurred in the saying where Jesus contrasted John the Baptist, who "came neither eating bread nor drinking wine," with the Son of Man, who "has come eating and drinking" (Luke 7:33-34). Another probable example is the statement that "the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" (Luke 9:58). In this instance He warned a would-be disciple that those who wanted to follow Him must expect to share His homeless existence.
Second, Jesus used the title to emphasize that "the Son of Man must suffer" (Mark 8:31). The word must implies that His suffering was foretold by the prophets. It was, indeed, "written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt" (Mark 9:12). So when Jesus announced the presence of the betrayer at the Last Supper, He declared, "The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him" (Mark 14:21). Later on the same evening He submitted to His captors with the words, "The Scriptures must be fulfilled" (Mark 14:49).
Finally, Jesus used the title Son of Man to refer to Himself as the one who exercised exceptional authority-authority delegated to Him by God. "The Son of Man has power [authority] on earth to forgive sins" (Mark 2:10), He declared. He exercised this authority in a way that made some people criticize Him for acting with the authority of God: "The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28).
The Son of Man appeared to speak and act in these cases as the representative man. If God had given man dominion over all the works of His hands, then He who was the Son of Man in this special representative sense was in a position to exercise that dominion.
Near the end of His ministry, Jesus spoke of His authority as the Son of Man at the end of time. Men and women "will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory," He declared (Mark 13:26). He also stated to the high priest and other members of the supreme court of Israel: "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62). He seemed deserted and humiliated as He stood there awaiting their verdict. But the tables would be turned when they saw Him vindicated by God as Ruler and Judge of all the world.
Only once in the Gospels was Jesus referred to as the Son of Man by anyone other than Himself. This occurred when Stephen, condemned by the Jewish SANHEDRIN, saw "the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56). In Stephen's vision the Son of Man stood as his heavenly advocate, in fulfillment of Jesus' words: "Whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Raf
From what I read, the heresy of Arius was a direct threat to the church and the council was called by Constantine, who initally favored Arius, and then the mood the of council changed when the orthodox church prevailed.
for anyone who is interested, check this site.
It's an article called "A Hammer Struck At Heresy"
What exactly happened at the famous Council of Nicea, when the Roman emperor convened some 250 quarreling Christian bishops?
by Robert Payne
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/51h/51h011.htmlo"A Hammer Struck at Heresy"i
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Ok
There's 20 minutes I won't get back.
I will continue to believe in the Trinity. It still makes more sense than Modalism. Branham or Oneness Pentacostals.
But all those do have a ring of wierwillism.e
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Def,
You made my point for me.
First you said...
Then you said the person who called the council favored the Arian position at first. Does it sound like he called the council to put an end to the position he favored?
Point is, the people in Invisible Dan's links are not Arians, but more like Sabellians, a whole different heresy.
It doesn't bother me that you believe in the Trinity. I'm not out to change your mind. You've heard all the arguments already, as have I.
God Bless You.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Along with Arians (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) and Socinians (e.g. Wierwille, Wayfers, CES-types), adherents of Oneness Theology deny the eternal existence and divine person of the Son.
Oneness theology is a form of Unitarianism.
One fellow who seems to have some apologetic focus on Oneness Theology has characterized early Sabellianism as "successive modalism" (i.e. the notion that the Father became the Son who became the Holy Spirit), while characterizing the dogma of present-day Oneness adherents as "simultaneous modalism."
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Clarification
"Oneness" theologians do NOT deny the divinity of Christ.
They affirm that He is God. What they deny is that God is tri-personal. In other words, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different manifestations or expressions of ONE person, as opposed to three persons making up ONE God.
XXXX
I'm just rambling now, you can skip this if you'd like:
Cynic, when you say that Oneness theologians "deny the divine person of the Son," I think you're being, unintentionally, misleading. That's why I wanted to clarify what you said.
For the oneness theologians, Jesus Christ is God. The Father is God. Jesus Christ is the Father. The Father is the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
They deny Christ as a person separate from the Father, so in that sense I get what you're saying. But you made it sound like they don't believe Jesus Christ is God, so I wanted to make that a little more clear.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Rafael,
I figured I would wind up explaining that assertion.
By asserting that adherents of Oneness Theology deny "the divine person of the Son," I was attempting to communicate that Oneness adherents deny the Son has identity as a divine person. They confine what it meant that Jesus Christ was the Son of God to a human existence having a beginning.
Their view involves a tension between holding that Jesus Christ was the Son of God (in their dogma, a mere human figure who did not exist before conception and birth) and holding that Jesus Christ was God the Father.
Consequently, in their theology, Jesus' prayers are characterized as dialogues between his human and divine natures.
The fellow I mentioned as having some apologetic focus on Oneness Theology has a website (http://www.christiandefense.com) with information about Oneness dogma.
I previously decided against posting a link to that website because of this statement which I happened upon there:
---------------
"Even more, the ontological distinction between the Persons of the Trinity is well observed in constructions where the article is repeated before all of the personal nouns."
( http://christiandefense.org/grammaticalDist_Oneness.htm )
---------------
There is NO ontological distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In informed and orthodox Trinitarianism, the distinctions are personal, NOT ontological.
What does that mean? In part, as D. A. Reed -- among others -- lucidly maintains, it means the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are THREE WHOs, but ONE WHAT. Undivided.
It appears, after some perusal of that website, however, that the statement about there being an ontological distinction among the three divine persons was an aberration.
The following statements reveal a much more solid grasp of an orthodox Trinitarian view of God:
---------------
"Historically the Christian church has always and tenaciously taught there is one true God ontologically (by nature) who alone is eternal and uncreated. The very foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is ontological monotheism: There exist three coequal, coeternal, and codistinct Persons or Selves that share the nature of the one Being."
( http://www.christiandefense.com/one_introduction.htm )
---------------
"First, Scripture presents only the divine Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the true God (ontologically)."
( http://www.christiandefense.com/one_rejctTrin.htm )
---------------
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
A question for those who may have been involved with the Way at the time (circ.1975):
Did anyone happen to notice a decline in the frequency of healings, miracles and the like shortly following the release of "JCNG"?
I'm curious.
Thank you.
Danny
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on January 04, 2004 at 3:45.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Might one's perception on the nature of God/Christ/Holy Spirit have an effect on the outcome of prayer/healings/miracles?
Yes? No? Maybe?
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on January 18, 2004 at 17:50.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.