Cynic

Ma?.

Good link, Def.

Jeff,

Do you care to try demonstrating how the view of Christ promoted by CES' principals involves a recognition -- rather than entails the denial -- that Jesus Christ is the unique or only begotten Son of God?

If you cannot demonstrate it, maybe you could fetch one or more of CES' principals to attempt to demonstrate it.

Okay, Mark,

Can't demonstrate it from CES' materials? Demonstrate it of your own view, in your own words.

You have not demonstrated it. Your affirmation that there is no other savior but Jesus concerns his relation to men, not the sense in which he is the unique or only begotten Son of God.

Stop shuffling, Mark, and demonstrate something.

What, in CES' view -- or yours -- is there about the sense in which Jesus Christ is Son of God that is categorically so different from that sense in which Adam was the Son of God that Jesus Christ is said to be God's unique or only begotten Son?

Mark,

Please demonstrate that CES' principals have maintained that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in a sense that is unique, rather than in the same sense that Adam was the son of God.

I have not yet bothered to read much of Schoenheit's piece to which Jeff linked, but scrolled through it, noticing the assertion "Anyone who studies the subject of the kingdom of God knows that it has not come yet" -- the opening sentence of the last paragraph of Part 1 and the second paragraph of Part 2.

Just prior to that assertion, Schoenheit had maintained that Jesus did not know enough truth to state the truth when he said "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).

And before that, Schoenheit wrote:

"People who say that the teaching of Christ cannot refer to the Second Coming for the

simple reason that it is future are using circular reasoning. The assumption is that Jesus

cannot be mistaken for any reason, then using that assumption, an 'explanation' for what

he meant other than what the clear implication of his words are elsewhere in Scripture is

sought for."

In making his arguments, Schoenheit, of course, has his own implicit assumptions:

1. That Jesus was fallible.

2. That Jesus could speak falsely concerning future events.

3. That he, Schoenheit, can and does possess eschatological knowledge more accurately and comprehensively than Jesus did.

4. That he, Schoenheit, can and does have an interpretive insight sufficient to have obtained and now to communicate an eschatological view that requires dismissing some of Jesus' words as error.

5. That where it has been obvious that his, Schoenheit's, eschatological view is utterly inconsistent with statements of Jesus, it is Jesus who failed, rather than he, Schoenheit, who is deficient in understanding and/or a captive of Socinian Christology and wielder of its resultant impieties.

Although I do not embrace as an inerrant eschatological statement the pieces at the following URLs (I would characterize myself eschatologically as generally clueless rather than as an amillennialist), this stuff appears biblically well-grounded in its recognition that an eschatological in-breaking of the Kingdom of God was occurring in Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension, and that the Kingdom of God is now "Already" and "Not-Yet."

In what appears faithful to biblical indications, but which could incinerate the circuits of a Bullingerite's brain, these pieces maintain that there is an overlap of the present age and the age to come.

http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/two-age.htm

http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/eschatology.htm

CES' Mere Super-Cool, Sinless, Unique Human Being

In Jeff's post it is obvious that JAL and those he speaks for characterize Jesus Christ as a mere "genetic equivalent" of Adam who managed to distinguish himself from Adam by always making good "free will choices." It follows, of course, from such a view that Adam, had he always made good "free will choices," could have been everything Jesus Christ is.

The view of Christ CES pushes is that he was a "unique human being," and not the unique Son of God.

*****

Scripture's Unique Son of God

"It is a startling thing to believe with Jesus that God has a Son -- and one and only begotten Son. So focus on this for a moment. Don't fly over it because it's so commonplace. It is amazing and wonderful and mind-boggling -- and oh so crucial for our salvation from perishing.

"In calling the Son of God 'only begotten' Jesus means to distinguish the only begotten Son of God from sons who are made or adopted as sons. The angels are called 'sons of God' (Job 1:6), and we Christians are called 'sons of God' (Rom. 8:14-16). Angels are 'sons of God' by virtue of being directly created by God; and Christians are 'sons of God' by virtue of being adopted into his family through our being joined to Christ by the Holy Spirit.

"But the 'one and only begotten Son' is not a Son by creation or by adoption, but by begetting. And begetting is simply a human analogy for what is beyond our comprehension. But it carries a crucial truth, as C.S. Lewis said: 'Rabbits beget rabbits; horses beget horses; humans beget humans, not statues or portraits; and God begets God -- not humans and not angels.[']

"God's only begotten Son is God. And there never was a time when God had not begotten his Son. Because the begetting of the Son is equally eternal with the existence of the God the Father. The standing forth of the Son as a perfect, personal image and representation and equal of the Father so that they exist as two persons with one divine essence is simply what it means to be God. This is the way God has existed from all eternity, without beginning. This is the point of John 1:1,14,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

"In other words, the Word, Jesus, is the only begotten Son, and co-eternal with the Father..

"There is God. And God has a one and only begotten Son."

-- John Piper, The Design: Love

(From http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/94/121194.html.)

Say three "Defeat Hillarys" and swill two Budweisers, my son. :)-->

Lindy,

Long Gone's post might have been sloppily worded (which would be quite uncharacteristic for Long Gone), but, as it is written, his post implies that if faith is informed by attempts "to draw logical conclusions" from the Bible under an assumption of its infallibility (I prefer the word inerrancy), faith enters a realm where it is refuted by logic.

Long Gone,

I didn't think you would care to try. :)-->

Long Gone wrote,

"Evan may not appreciate my endorsement, but he exhibits what I have called, in Plotinus' words, a 'reasonable faith.' By that, I don't mean one that can be supported by logic, but rather, one that is not refuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic, particularly not on trying to draw logical conclusions from a supposedly infallible, 'magical self-interpreting Bible.' It's a bit of a paradox that what makes such faith 'reasonable' is that it is not based on reason. If it were, it wouldn't be faith."

*****

Long Gone,

Care to try demonstrating that faith, if it is informed by biblical exegesis and hermeneutics -- under the presupposed authority, inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture -- is subject to logical refutation?

David,

To my knowledge, no one has indicated they think you are posting here under two names. The confusion that has arisen concerns whether or not you are the same D. A. Reed (whose first name is also David) who is a former Jehovah's Witness figure who has written about and against the Watchtower Society.

The discussion began with Rafael's (Raf) post on the 16th post on this page.

I responded in the 3rd post on this page.

In the 5th post on the latter page, Refiner (an ex-JW) seems to identify you with the ex-JW named David Reed.

In the 6th post, I stated that I think that you and he are different fellows.

In the 7th post, Rafael says he's always thought you were he.

In the 9th post, I again state I do not think so.

Things continue in the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th posts of that page, and come up again in this thread.

*****

A couple of books by the ex-JW fellow named David Reed are:

Blood on the Altar: Confessions of a Jehovah Witness Minister

Index of Watchtower Errors: 1879 To 1989

Unless he's gone through some changes, this forum's D. A. Reed is NOT a Jesuit.

Rafael,

You've apparently sat around playing with that idea that alien should be characterized as a univocal term for just far too long.

*****

No, I'm fairly confident, but am not sure, that D. A. and the other D. A. are not the same guy.

Refiner,

I sort of enjoy being an a$$hole. Don't take my invective too seriously.

I think that is a different David Reed.

Rafael wrote,

"I'm having a bit of a hard time with this.

"I too am an ex-JW, but unlike Refiner, I'm also ex-TWI.

"How would I feel if someone who's not ex-TWI showed up and started posting on how we all need to accept the Trinity? Don't know. It hasn't happened (I'm assuming DA Reed is ex-TWI, but I don't know that for sure).

"Do people who are not ex-TWI have to respect some kind of boundaries before posting? Is it trolling if they try to start an interesting/controversial discussion? I should hope not. But at the same time I understand how folks like Dot and Goey are feeling."

*****

I don't know D. A. Reed except through his posts on forums frequented by ex-Wayfers. I remember him indicating, however, he had known someone who was involved with or who had been involved with TWI, and that he had not himself been involved with the sect.

Refiner's posts have not yet bothered me much. I point out, nonetheless, that Refiner has apparently made 383 posts (well, that was his indicated tally when I started writing this post) in scantly over one month, and has seven threads sitting on the first pages of the "Doctrinal" and "About the Way" forums.

D. A. Reed has made all the apologetic and other points he has made in the present version of this forum in a GS-indicated total of 29 posts, since registering more than two years ago.

Rafael's analogy is, rather characteristically, superficial. D. A. Reed's posting on ex-Wayfer forums is not equivalent to some Arian-turned-cult-romping-atheist-windbag's cyber-joining of himself to some ex-Wayfers.

*****

"The natural man then assumes that he has the final criterion of truth within himself. Every form of authority that comes to him must justify itself by standards inherent in man and operative apart from the authority that speaks." -- Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith

Galen,

I concur with the previous poster. If the problem occurs only while you're seated on the toilet, a thicker "raised" toilet seat might provide relief.

If it occurs while you're standing, however, you might try standing on stools of various heights and contacting some Hollywood agents.

Relational Subordination, Evaluative Consistency and Socinian Hags.

Some ex-Wayfers argue that Jesus' subjection to the Father contraindicates there being equality between them.

If biblical indication of relational subordination signifies an inequality that involves an inferiority of nature, however, every married woman on this forum is inferior in what constitutes her essential nature to that which constitutes the essential nature of her husband.

Arians hold that God created Christ and that Christ subsequently created all other things.

Trefor wrote,

"I don't think that all biblical unitarian positions deny Christ's pre existence.

"Wierwille did but that did not make him an Arian as Arius did not deny pre existence. I believe that denial of this is called Socinianism."

*****

Quite correct.

Although both Arianism and Socinianism deny the eternal existence of the Son, Socinians (e.g. Wierwille, CES' principals, various GS posters) hold that Christ had no existence prior to his earthly conception, while Arians (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) hold that Christ was the first creature created by God.

Trefor,

Jolly good post!

Wierwille and others' charge that the doctrine of the Trinity entails some logical contradiction requiring that 1+1+1 = 1 is, of course, fallacious. The refutation would work if Trinitarians held that that there were both a singular and a plurality of essences in God, or held that God were both tri-personal and unipersonal. As indicated above, however, Trinitarians hold that God is singular in being (or essence) and tri-personal. Informed, orthodox and intellectually functioning Trinitarians do not assert that God is one and three in the same sense.

Such a charge of logical contradiction against the Trinity, therefore, impeaches neither the logical validity nor the soundness of the doctrine. The charge ostensibly involves incredible ignorance or a mere disguised brute denial of the ontological and personal categories that Trinitarians use to communicate a biblically necessary and warranted understanding of God.

DMiller,

Informed and orthodox Trinitarians do not maintain that the Father and the Son are the same person.

They generally maintain that the being or essence of God is singular and indivisible, and that the being or essence of God exists fully in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. They equally maintain that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct from one another.

What they maintain is made necessary by some propositions and indications of Scripture, and is consistent with all others.

There is one God -- one uncreated, self-sufficiently existing deity. There are three divine persons -- existing eternally on the Creator side of the Creator/creature distinction. Thus, informed and orthodox Trinitarianism recognizes a singleness of being or essence and a plurality of persons in God. What does all this mean? It means, as D. A. Reed and some others maintain, that in the triune God there are three who's and one what.

There is no adequate analogy concerning absolute singleness of undivided being (or essence) dwelling in and among a plurality of particulars that could be gleaned from any of the kinds of existents in this creation to which men's thoughts are bound.

*****

“But this God must be what he declares himself to be: the tri-personal, self-subsisting God. Any attenuation at the outset is fatal. ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each a personality and together constitute the exhaustively personal God. There is an eternal, internal, self-conscious interaction between the three persons of the Godhead....Each is as much God as are the other two....The diversity and the unity in the God-head are therefore equally ultimate; they are exhaustively correlative to one another and not correlative to anything else.’ This Trinity is called the ontological Trinity. By the use of the adjective Van Til, following Reformed theology in general, intends to set off the concept of God ad intra, or as he is in himself, from the concept of God ad extra, or as he produces effects outside of himself. When, therefore, we talk of the ontological Trinity, we contemplate God apart from the cosmos over which he presides.”

-- Cornelius Van Til (quoting John Vriend). The Defense of the Faith

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot oversaw statist movements that were based on an economic, social and political worldview that was rabidly and consciously anti-theistic. George does not escape historical facts involving those atheists, their particular states and Marxism's significant and directed anti-theistic scheme by defining devotion to anti-theistic collectivism as merely another form of theism.

*****

As for Danny,

A polemical antichristian named Jim Walker, at the site to which Danny linked, qualified Hitler as a Christian on the basis that "A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner." ( http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm )

Such loose a definition of a Christian was made necessary by some statements attributed to Hitler -- the authenticity of which, of course, Walker first attacks -- in which Hitler denounced Paul as, among several things, a falsifier of Jesus' doctrine and a proto-Bolshevik, and characterized Jesus as a populist whose activism was directed against Jewish capitalism.

It is not unusual for non-Christians to claim to be the legitimate followers of Jesus. There are Muslims who enter Christian groups on PalTalk and post that Jesus was a Muslim or that Islam was the religion Jesus taught. Thomas Jefferson preened as a Christian on the basis of professed esteem for Jesus' ethical teachings. Jefferson, however, denied the Trinity and the Virgin Birth of Christ, and denounced Jesus' disciples as fabricators for their accounts of Jesus' miracles. John Dominic Crossan of "The Jesus Seminar" does not openly condemn Jesus when he speaks to the media, but he has rejected the biblical revelation of Jesus and has offered his alternative version -- all speculatively construed and made palatable to impenitence and unbelief.

Walker's question, "If Hitler did not see himself as a Christian, then why doesn't he condemn Jesus?" could be used in support of an argument that Muslims who speak flattering words about Jesus are self-consciously Christian.

Christianity is a strong religious, social and intellectual reality that some false religionists, some tyrants, some revolutionaries and some peddlers of apostasy have faced with platitudes and redefinition rather than with direct public opposition. Rather than overtly deride Jesus and risk provoking too-immediate a response from Christians, some will get up and say a few positive words about Jesus and invoke a redefined version of him. They utterly reject him, however, in their rejection of and/or variance from the biblical revelation of who he is.

I'm no Hitler scholar, but Hitler's ultimate commitment seems to have been to some grotesque illusion he held concerning himself.

The atheists Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were such exemplars of tolerance and compassion.