The "Claim to the Name"

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Yes, mowerman, I sit around all day with nothing to do except think up ways to log on to www.apostolicfriendsforum.com and insult you. I find it either flabbergasting or hilarious (can't make up my mind which) that you claim to have a greater understanding than others of what God has done for us, because of your great theology, yet your poor feelings are hurt and insulted when I respond to your claims by saying that you are theologically arrogant. This is a classic case of you being able to dish it out, but completely unable to take it. Simple as that.

As far as who I hang out with...yesterday it was a regional leader from FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) who had a very negative reaction to the direct quotes of the things you said. To be exact, his reaction was, "Wellll, you can't pay any attention to guys like that. They think they know everything."

If you have some free time today, grab a phone book and call a sampling of trinitarian pastors and see what their reaction is to your claim to have a greater understand of what God has done for us, than they do. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say their reactions won't be a lot different than mine.

So, you still choose to ignore the comment I made about justification?

For the record, my feelings aren't hurt and I certainly can take it. However, coming from someone who has admittedly gone on a crusade of being the righteousness crusader for those who are mistreated and maligned, your comments seem to be completely out of character.

No matter how I explain what I said and even though absolutely no superiority was implicit or explicit you choose to make the "arrogant" comments.

You have completely mischaracterized my statements to mean something that they were not intended to mean. You put words in my mouth and then malign me for supposedly meaning what you want them to mean. AND then why I try to clarify, you continue on your pathway and ignore what I said.

The sad thing is, that from all you purport to believe and defend, your words don't line up. I don't know where your bitterness or chip on your shoulder comes from, but it is obvious and sad that you choose not to be civil.

I'm not your enemy and we have more in common than you think. I just don't know why it is that you seem to choose the adversarial role.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Sam

I've been reading MOW's posts here for a long time and I would not consider him to be an arrogant person.

Yes, I would have to agree, the longer I have known MOW, the more my respect and admiration for him and his ministry has grown.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Mow, This assumes these you speak of are not Trinitarian at all, but rather some cult that denies Jesus is God Himself. The divinity of Christ is central to classic Trinitarinism.

It is.(divinity of Christ)

However, there are those, certainly not all, but many of them, who are more tri-thesitic in their trinitarianism than others. All one has to do is look at Dake's explanation of it to see what I mean.

[Fiyahstarter]

Somebody is PMSing.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

So, you still choose to ignore the comment I made about justification?

For the record, my feelings aren't hurt and I certainly can take it. However, coming from someone who has admittedly gone on a crusade of being the righteousness crusader for those who are mistreated and maligned, your comments seem to be completely out of character.

No matter how I explain what I said and even though absolutely no superiority was implicit or explicit you choose to make the "arrogant" comments.

You have completely mischaracterized my statements to mean something that they were not intended to mean. You put words in my mouth and then malign me for supposedly meaning what you want them to mean. AND then why I try to clarify, you continue on your pathway and ignore what I said.

The sad thing is, that from all you purport to believe and defend, your words don't line up. I don't know where your bitterness or chip on your shoulder comes from, but it is obvious and sad that you choose not to be civil.

I'm not your enemy and we have more in common than you think. I just don't know why it is that you seem to choose the adversarial role.

No, we're not enemies. But it's obvious you have a tough time with me and have had since I protested your obscene (to me) references to Nancy Pelosi. Things sorta headed for the drain after that.

I'm not ignoring the justification comments, I just don't think they're relevant to the discussion. Just because you give trinitarians credit for something, doesn't change the fact that you don't believe they can get a "handle on what God has done." I'm sorry, but if you believe that your personal understanding of the Godhead puts you in a superior position to understand what God has done for us, I struggle to identify it as anything but theological arrogance.

I'm sure you sincerely believe that no "superiority was implicit or explicit." But there is absolutely NO DOUBT that people who do not agree with your Godhead theology would be aghast at your claims. I asked one, and he passed you off as, "Some people think they know everything." I'm sure you can convince most everyone here on the forum that you aren't theologically arrogant, just correct. I'm relatively sure that I will continue to stand alone in my view. I have no problem with that.

You answer my challenge by throwing verbal darts to claim I refuse to be civil, or that I'm bitter and have a chip on my shoulder. And I'm sure you sincerely believe that. But you also believe that you have a greater understanding of God than others so I'll take your view for what it's worth.

I absolutely HAVE NOT put words in your mouth and you couldn't possibly back up, with fact, that statement. Repeatedly, I have simply quoted you and your theological superiority complex is the result of your own words, not my mischaracterizations of you.

I will agree with you on one thing...I am being adversarial about this. I will always oppose those in religion who believe that "Someone who doesn't understand biblical oneness just can't get a handle on what God did." That wasn't putting words in your mouth, that was a direct quote from you. In fact, I copied it and pasted it.

I will continue to believe that anyone who believes that, because of their theological view, has a greater understanding of what God did, is theologically arrogant. Sorry, that's my opinion.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

Yes, I would have to agree, the longer I have known MOW, the more my respect and admiration for him and his ministry has grown.

And once again, it is necessary for the sake of accuracy, to point out that I have not called him an arrogant person nor questioned his ministry or the growth thereof.

[ManOfWord]

You are obviously, once again, picking and choosing which quotes to use. From my original post which you left out: "It is unfortunate that some with this understanding hold it in arrogance and perceived superiority."

Then I said the following: "They can't get a handle on it like "we" do.

Different understandings bring different things we can get a handle on. Most oneness folks haven't a CLUE of what justification is WITH a oneness understanding. Most Trinitarians have a good handle on justification but not a handle on what God did if they don't really know the price that was paid. HUGE difference between God sending the 2nd person of the godhead to earth to pay the price and Him coming Himself. I certainly don't beat Trinitarians up over it, but there is a big difference. My comment wasn't condescending but a factual statement from personal experience and observation."



My justification comment was completely relevant. Nothing more important, at least to me, than the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Most oneness folks don't have a clue as to what that means. That puts them in an inferior position when it comes to understanding where our justification comes from because the opposite is justification by works.

THAT was when you accused me of arrogance and stated: "I'm not sure what I can do except chuckle. Exhibit A in theological arrogance. Oh well, at least you're honest about your superiority."

Then I said this: "It has nothing to do with arrogance or exclusivity whatsoever and I stated nothing about superiority. Actually, if you go back and read what I did say, I said that Trinitarians have more of a handle on justification by faith than oneness folks do. So I guess you'll ignore the superiority I gave them and I'll take your personal attack calling me theologically arrogant.

Those who have a "handle" on the gifts are not superior to those who don't. They're just in a different place. We're all there to some degree and that has nothing to do with who is better.

Like I've said before....it seems that no matter what I say or how I say it you'll try to pick a fight. I won't return your personal attack but I've explained what I meant in the most simple terms I could. I take responsibility if you didn't understand it."



Bottom line: I'm really sorry that your problem with me goes WAY back to the Nancy Pelosi thing, (which was a thread I didn't even start) but that is your problem not mine. Remember, you're the one who came after me, not vice versa. I don't have a problem with you, but I do have a problem with your lack of civility and I'm certainly not the only one here who thinks so. The real problem, IMO, is your perception. If you had been here for a long time you'd know that I frequently have been criticized for being a liberal and not putting everyone into hell who doesn't believe Ac. 2:38. You're really labeling the wrong guy when you intimate that my theological position is arrogant. You certainly don't know what you're talking about especially since you don't have a clue about the people I have relationships with.

The crazy thing to me is that you jump on me when I AGREE with you and then you boast about going on the offensive against those who feel they have spiritual superiority.

I have no problem whatsoever stating that there are those who have superior understandings to me. We are all at that place. NONE of us have it all and most all have some. You're straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by notofworks

"Chip"?

Look, let me see if simplification will be beneficial.

Person A believes he has a superior understanding of God and His workings than Person B. I don't know, what do you call it? I call it theological arrogance. I can't think of anything else.

No, not arrogance, let me add to the "equation". Person A believes he has a superior understanding of God than Person B. Yet Person A loves, respects, and believes Person B to be every bit "saved" as Person A, yet at a diferent stage than Person A concering the full identity of the Son.


Arrogance (and yes we do see arrogance often on this side of the fence, but as I've learned on CARM, the arrogance is just as bitter from the trinitarians towards oneness)- says PERSON A has a better understanding of God than Person B, therefore Person A believes Himself to be favored more of God, loved more by God, and a true servant of God, while Person B is as lost a "two boys kissing", a heritic, a cultist, etc.

And, it doesn't matter if Person A is Trinitarian, and Person B is oneness. This one cuts both ways.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Hey Timmy, I'm smarter than you, richer than you, better looking than you, know more about God than you, I'm wiser, my car is better, my kids are smarter, I'm more athletic, and my wife is prettier.

But I'm not sounding arrogant or anything.

NOW, if your want to be better looking you'll have to get a haircut like mine.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I have edited this post to read NOT necessarily ...

Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945

Hoovie, I just noticed this on your sig line. Very interesting, can you provide the specific reference? (pg number, volume, issues, or copy of the article).

Sam, feel free to help out if you've got it.