Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby
In his mind (Gerry's), the argument is mostly a semantic one, and in fact said he has no problem with Word pre-existant prior to, during and since the incarnation of the Son in Beth-lehem. Gerry is the head of the Theology Department but I don't know for how long!
|
I'm trying to understand how this is different from Trinitarianism. Trins believe that the eternal Son existed (distinct from the Father) prior to, during, and since the Incarnation. Oneness people deny this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby
The book, Vintage Jesus, without exception, is one of the most Jesus-glorifying books I've ever read, with the exception of an off-handed two sentence cut and paste from Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults slamming Oneness. I emailed Gerry about the ad hominem statement concerning (all) oneness believers, and his exact words to me were, "It should have never made it into the book", and said the biggest difference he saw with traditional pentecostal "trinitarians" and "oneness" is SEMANTICS. He asked me (this was 5 or six years ago) if I thought the two groups would ever reconcile. I expressed my doubts they would, because there are hardliners on BOTH sides.
|
Wow, I have browsed Driscoll/Breshears'
Vintage Jesus and noticed the short section about Oneness Pentecostalism. I did not know that Breshears actually feels the issue is semantic.
Threaded Mode
