You think Trinitarians accept you?

[TheChariot]

Originally Posted by JamDat

So it was okay for you to listen to radio show, but now that you don't listen to it, it's garbage?

It was never okay for anyone to listen to that.

Originally Posted by JamDat

They are not anti-chrarismatic [sic], but they are anti-goofballs.

They are goofballs. Where can I start? Shall I begin with their benign criticisms of evolution? Or when they quote Darwin, yet those words are not attributed to Darwin? Or shall I bring to remembrance the BANANA-CREATION issue back when it was WotM Radio? Or shall I remind people of the time Christopher Hitchens publicly destroyed him on air. Those guys are pseudo-intellectuals, Jr. Detectives, and pseudo-philosophers. People have to earn degrees to make the claims made by that show. It's an insult when you hear some of those obviously false proposals, and I wonder why they feel it is okay to LIE and DECEIVE. I mean, I have no other words but lie and deceive, because the quotes are taken so out of context that it reminds me of the failed Perry/Romney ads against Obama.

Originally Posted by JamDat

And dude, to question me why I listen to garbage is just plain rude (you'd think that I claimed to be listening to Howard Stern or something) and as embarrassing as you claim they are.

It was a hypothetical question in the first place. I really don't care what people listen to. My comment was there so you don't take their words to heart. I assumed that you were a Oneness Pentecostal and that may have bothered you.

Originally Posted by JamDat

Especially when you follow it up with "I listen to CNN." ROFL

CNN is not garbage. It's a cable news network that may have a bias, but is not as bad as Faux News or MSNBC, that's for sure.

[JamDat]

Originally Posted by TheChariot

It was never okay for anyone to listen to that. They are goofballs. Where can I start? Shall I begin with their benign criticisms of evolution? Or when they quote Darwin, yet those words are not attributed to Darwin? Or shall I bring to remembrance the BANANA-CREATION issue back when it was WotM Radio? Or shall I remind people of the time Christopher Hitchens publicly destroyed him on air. Those guys are pseudo-intellectuals, Jr. Detectives, and pseudo-philosophers. People have to earn degrees to make the claims made by that show. It's an insult when you hear some of those obviously false proposals, and I wonder why they feel it is okay to LIE and DECEIVE. I mean, I have no other words but lie and deceive, because the quotes are taken so out of context that it reminds me of the failed Perry/Romney ads against Obama.

It was a hypothetical question in the first place. I really don't care what people listen to. My comment was there so you don't take their words to heart. I assumed that you were a Oneness Pentecostal and that may have bothered you. CNN is not garbage. It's a cable news network that may have a bias, but is not as bad as Faux News or MSNBC, that's for sure.

MMmm K

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The "Apologetics" types are the worse. The more well studied they are the harsher they are is my experience. The rank and file believers will side with their leaders. There are always exceptions. I still have friends among them.

When I attended Western Seminary my apologetics prof was Gerry Breshears, co-author (w/Driscoll) of Vintage Jesus. We had several friendly discussions about the oneness movement before and after his apologetics class. I learned from Gerry that the NorCal campus had hired Jeff Garner as an adjunct professor. 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!

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.

I hope Mark Driscoll can allow a real dialogue to happen...but even if he pulls it off there will remain those trinitarian hardliners that can't shake their Dallas Theological Seminarian roots. They will attack anyone not willing to use the term PERSON describing Father, Son and Holy Ghost as their own litmus test, much like Oneness people use Jesus' name baptism as their's.

[Sabby]

At least OPs have a primitive church history vs patristic history to draw from.

[Sabby]

Not to mention the B I B L E as well

[Orthodoxy]

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.

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.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by JamDat

Wretched Radio with Todd Friel

I have listened to that program also. Sadly, it only comes on from 10-12 on Saturday night up here. I wish that they would move it to a more accessible time period through the week.

[JamDat]

Originally Posted by Jay

I have listened to that program also. Sadly, it only comes on from 10-12 on Saturday night up here. I wish that they would move it to a more accessible time period through the week.

$5 a month on his website for the daily 2 hour podcast and the TV show.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

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.



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.

Breshears understands the godhead better than most oneness people do. And he told me personally (after apologetics class) that in his opinion, the biggest reason for the disunity is over "semantics". I tend to agree. I think that's why he asked me what I thought about John 17.
If you read the by-laws of the PCI (pre-merger), you will see where the terms manifestions and persons are used interchangeably concerning describing the godhead.

A prior post about the "Wretched radio" kinda nails it. It wouldn't matter if you agreed with the "educated" apologists for trinitarianism. No, you OPs are SO dangerously heretical that they demand you RECANTING your position. It doesn't matter if you have used the scriptures to explain your position. They rely exclusively on patristic era writings and those of the "church fathers", and you had BETTER say the words F,S&HG in water baptism else you are a JESUS ONLY. Is that semantic?
I didn't think it was such a big deal to Trini's (thought only OPs were that way). As an independent pastor of a mission church I considered licensure w/the Pentecostal Church of God to have a "fellowship" circle-so to speak- for our folks. Once the regional director understood I had graduated from a oneness bible college the gloves came off. His tone changed from an entreating attitude ("we'd love to have you, brother") to a very aggressive combative tone ("you will have to sign a pledge promising that you will not baptize anyone in any other way but in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!"). I was amazed. And convinced I wanted nothing to do with them.

I know oneness people that express amazement when they discover "other" christians believe the same as they do concerning the godhead. They realize they've been mistaken by believing oneness mantra that the outside church world does not necessarily believe in three gods. Is this semantic...yes, it is.

You have hardliners on both sides that won't budge for fear of a loss of reputation. They wind up preaching to "amen choirs" that subsidize their ministries.

Again, I hope Mark Driscoll has a right spirit and without fear have an open dialogue.

[Sabby]

Orthodoxy,
The section in the book IS very short, and having read Walter Martin's description of oneness, it really does look like something that was cut and pasted into the manuscript.