Word of Faith Member

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Litteral (and those looking on):

TL:
>>>I am not familiar with this term.  What are the tennets of
this Philosophy?<<<

KV:
Basically Nestorianism is the belief that Jesus contained the Spirit like a sail
contains the wind.  :)  Seriously though, Nestorians believe that divinity and
humanity in Christ were united only in purpose and were not united in
substance as one singular being (hypostatical union).  Nestorians would hold
that Christ can be divided into two distinct beings (human and divine) and that
the human person could have (and perhaps did, for a time) existed separate from
the divine person.  Critics of Nestorianism usually describe Nestorianism as the
belief that the union of humanity and deity in Christ can be explained with the
analogy of God dwelling in a human house or shell.  I, personally, see the wind
and sail analogy as a variation of the same concept.


 TL:
>>>There was only one nature in Jesus Christ.  To please the
Father.<<<

KV:
When I refer to the "dual natures" of Christ I am simply speaking of humanity
and divinity.  I was under the impression that this is common terminology that
is accepted by adherents of Oneness.  Simply put, Jesus is/was both God and man
at the same time.  I would add that legitamate Oneness doctrine holds that
although Christ has/had two natures he is inseperably one in being.  The two
natures resident in Christ are inextricably bound together.

 
KV (FORMER POST):
>>>>>> Incarnation: that act of grace whereby Christ took our
human nature into union with his Divine Person, became man.
Christ is both God and man. Human attributes and actions
are predicated of him, and he of whom they are predicated
is God. A Divine Person was united to a human nature (Acts
20:28; Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:8; Heb. 2:11-14; 1 Tim.3:16;
Gal. 4:4, etc.). The union is
 hypostatical, i.e., is personal; the two natures are not
mixed or confounded, and it is perpetual.  (Easton's Bible
Dictionary)<<<<<<

TL:
>>>This is complete heresy and Trinitarian.  The Bible says
that God
MANIFESTED Himself IN the sinless flesh of Jesus making Him
the "Anointed."  This is not an incarnation but a
MANIFESTATION or showing forth or display IN the medium of
flesh.  The Spirit had one nature and the flesh another. 
The Spirit is God and the flesh is not.  The nature of
Spirit IN flesh (man) was to obey the Spirit and the nature
of the flesh was to submit to the Spirit.<<<

KV:
Well, I will just say that I disagree that the concept of the Incarnation is
heresy.  All respectable sources that I have ever seen uphold the concept
of the Incarnation (including Oneness sources).

The reason I posted the above definition from Easton's was:  (1) It was easily
accessable on the internet and I didn't have to type it.  (2) I thought it was
pretty good and in no way incriminating of Oneness doctrine.  I don't understand
what you wee to be trinitarian about the definition.

  
TL:
>>>Here is the error.  Jesus was not devine in every aspect. 
He got hungry, God is self sufficient.  Jesus had a
beginning, God is 
eternal.  Jesus was the son of Mary, God is the Father of
all.  I could go on but any one of these disqualifies Jesus
as God.  Jesus was God MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.  This is
what the Bible says He was.

It was the Spirit that forgave the sins and the flesh that
paid the 
price.  The Spirit could speak as God from "inside the
flesh" as well as anywhere else without changing His nature
in any way.<<<

KV:
I don't quite know how to respond to this.  It appears TO ME that you divide
Christ too much.  That is why I said it sounds like Nestorianism.  Any human
frailties that Jesus may have had was because He humbled himself and took on the
form a servant.  He emptied Himself in that He intentionally made Himself
subject unto the pangs of the flesh as a man.  He did not resort to taking of
advantage of the divine perogatives He had by virtue of His deity.  To say that
"Jesus had a beginning and God is eternal" is gross oversimplification.  One
cannot say that Jesus had a beginning and be entirely correct.  The human nature
of Jesus was a result of immacculate conception, but Jesus surely existed before
this as the One God who created all things.


KV (FORMER POST):
>To say that Jesus was a vessel that contained the Spirit
ultimately reduces Him to the same status as a born again
believer.  

TL:
>>>Not quite.  It ELEVATES the believer to the status of
brother.<<<


KV:
Hmmmmmm... Again not quite sure what to say to this.  Born again folks do have
the Spirit dwelling in them, to be sure--but not in the same manner as Jesus
did/does.  Jesus said, "I and my Father are One."  This, obviously is not true
of the born again saint.  Sure, in one sense Christ is our "brother", but I
don't think it is in the context that you are implying.


KV (FORMER POST):
>Illustrations of the "mystery of Godliness" (e.g. the
incarnation, per 1 Tim 3.16) are insufficient because, to a
large extent, it is just that--a mystery.

TL:
>>>When the Greek said "here is a mystery" it was the same as
if I said to you "here is a secret."  Now, after I tell you
the "secret" 
are you enlightened or left in the dark?

1 Tim 3:16 is saying "Here is the great secret of
godliness: that 
God MANIFESTED Himself IN the flesh."  This is the ANSWER
and not the "mystery."<<<


KV:
I must admit, here, that I have never done a Greek word study on "manifest" in
1 Tim 3:16.  But, I think the context dictates that the mystery is that "God was
manifest in the flesh."  We can apply theories and explain it to the best of our
human ability, but it is still largely a mystery.  How was He manifest in flesh?
To what extent?  Did Jesus have a human soul, spirit, mind?  Or was the Spirit
of God the only spirit of Christ?  We can speculate...but where the Scripture is
silent, so should we be from a doctrinal standpoint.


TL:
>>>I say this in love brother, it is very difficult to
understand the finer 
points of doctrine when you continue to use Trinitarian
sources
for reference.  I am not saying that just because a
resource is written with a Trinitarian bias that it is
useless but there is always 
an inordinate amount of "interpretation" to the "facts." 
The Easton Dictionary is a prime example of this.  I would,
if I may be so bold, suggest a Strong's Concordance with
the Hebrew
and Greek Lexicons at the end.  This gives you the meaning
of  the word when it was written WITHOUT the interpretation
which is then left up to you and God.<<<


I appreciate your sincereity.  I can assure you that I am well versed with
available Oneness writings.  I also have a rather extensive personal library
which includes Strongs, Youngs, Vines, Wilsons, Thayers, etc.  I only included
the Easton's quote because it was excessible from work (where I made my previous
post, as well as this one).  As a side note, I hope you realize that even
Strong's has it's weaknesses and is not exempt from having been theologized.
Strong's was put together by ONE MAN (James Strong).  I, myself, am not fluent
in the original Hebrew/Chaldee and Greek of the Bible.  Unless I learn, or a
group of Holy Ghost filled scholars compile a respectable lexicon, I will have
to rely on what is available.  :(


Your brother in Christ Jesus, our holy God,
Kirk Van Ooteghem



***********************
 Kirk Van Ooteghem  
 00kmvanooteg@bsu.edu
 University Libraries
 Ball State University
***********************