Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

No doubt some do. That wasn't my point ether. John W. Montgomery is one. Myself and others have noted though that lawyers typically have the worst arguments in debate. James White has noted this as well.

Weren't you just putting the forum on blast for ad hominems?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

No doubt some do. That wasn't my point ether. John W. Montgomery is one. Myself and others have noted though that lawyers typically have the worst arguments in debate. James White has noted this as well.

But all you boys love to brag about DKB being a lawyer.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I want to say I am not calling you a liar. I don't know if your information is wrong, perhaps you misunderstood someone at any rate Princeton Theological has no record of ever awarding such a degree to Bro. Treece according to the return call I just received from Princeton Theological. So the honorary degree did not come from Princeton University or from Princeton Theological...should we check Harvard? Notre Dame? Yale? Regents?

I guess that's the reason lawyers have the worst arguments, we rely on the facts too much.

Did you try Princeton Smith's Business Academy in Chattanooga?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Well, JN said the University that awarded the Doctorate was the finest in North America. Slightly misleading.

Uhhhh, yeah. Very. Can't wait to read the NOT.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Did you try Princeton Smith's Business Academy in Chattanooga?

Hmmm I will give you that assignment. Give 'em a call I am sure those southern folks will be real helpful.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Yes, he does. It was given him by Princeton Theological Seminary. I have a hard copy of the 1986 symposium as well which recorded those honorifics. I have not seen the degree with my eyes but I do not doubt it was awarded. Bro. Treece is a very honorable man and has great respect for the Scriptures.

JN, have you perhaps misread that? Or is it possibly open to some "interpretation?" I honestly do not believe Bro. Treece has a doctorate from Princeton - nor an accredited Ph.D. at all. I don't think he's even claimed one - certainly not back in 1986.

Can you do a quick scan and post the citation? Or maybe just take a second look at it?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Don't be naive. The issue is about Oneness apologetics. It is about doctrine. Treece is on no witness stand either Baron. Keep up with the thread. I doubt he could work on a translation committee at this point anyways, given his age and health. Someone else introduced him and I merely commented on his degrees that were earned and awarded. You can fight over the specs all you want but that is a side issue.

Baron, where is your work on the Trinity? What have you written theologically that has been submitted to scrutiny? I see alot of your quips and quotes but very little substance from you. You may know law but that does not mean you know theology or the Oneness of God. Nor the Trinity for that matter. The Scriptures are our final source of appeal. Where is your work on that appeal? I would love to read your work on the Trinity. Lawyers make for good reading.

JN I have never written anything theologically that has been submitted to scrutiny. I would never consider myself a theologian. however I was forced to read DKB's books on the Oneness of God, Practical Holiness a Second Look, Romans, and a Oneness view of Jesus Christ, so I do have a pretty good handle on what he teaches. I also had Dr. Segraves for Christology, Romans, Hermeneutics, etc. so I have a pretty good grip on his Oneness views as well. In addition to that when Segraves taught Systematic Theology at CLC he did so using a Trinitarian, Millard Erickson. So I think I have a pretty well rounded view of both camps, perhaps heavier on the Oneness side.

I have also had the opportunity to discuss these things with Lyle Story, Joseph Kickasola, Peter Prosser and Vinson Synan while I was at Regent. I had classes with everyone except Synan who was the dean at the time.

Having a range of view and being familiar with the Oneness view means I can poke at it, you seem to be the self styled expert at defending it so don't take offense when you are questioned.

You presented the Idea of a New Oneness Translation, so the logical questions began to come who would be qualified to do such a work. It appears the only one put forward is lacking in the necessary education. As Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts ma'am."

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Because you think the right of translation acted upon by Oneness scholars makes them cultish. I don't think you even understand much of the things you say.

You're right. I admit it. I have no idea what I'm talking about. But then, I'm not the one trying to translate the bible. You call them "Oneness Scholars" and claim accomplishments, degrees, and doctorates, none of which can be verified and in fact, seem to have been disproved. So the point is NOT whether I know what I'm talking about or not, the point is whether or not you and your "Scholars' know what you're talking about to the point that you have the credentials, education, wherewithal, and ability to actually translate a bible. I'll tell you now, I don't! The difference is, I'm willing to admit it and I'm not out there re-translating the bible with no credibility to do so.

[ouden katakrim]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Facts? You rely on facts? Show me some facts on the Trinity then. That's my point those are the facts you are ignoring while worrying about an irrelevant degree.

One God. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father displays personal intelligent relational abilities acting and reacting with the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son displays personal intelligent relational abilities acting and reacting with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

We have to maintain and protect the integrity of the first four statements above while simultaneously maintaining and protecting the integrity of the last two statements. The Trinity maintains and protects the integrity of all statements made above by understanding that what is obviously being displayed is in reality the reality of God's existence and function, thereby forcing the conclusion that God is one divine being (essence) but three in person (identity). If we say that He is three divine beings because of His obvious tri-personality we then do not maintain the integrity of His ontology. If we say that He is uni-personal because of His one divine being-ness we then do not maintain the integrity of His self revelation and obvious tri-personality.

His oneness of being (essence) cannot be denied, textually. His tri-personality cannot be denied, textually. Our codefication of the two must be consistent and logically formed to maintain both.

ouden

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I've predicted for years that the OPs were going to produce their own version of the bible at some point. I still think they will as the Jehovah's Witnesses with their version have done.

The OPs are slowly losing their distinction from mainstream Christianity, something the leadership will not allow, IMO. The movement is built upon the foundation of being exclusive, the sole possessors of the real truth, and without that it will simply melt into just being another sect within the thousands of Christian sects.

A new bible would prevent that from happening. OPs could again believe they were the only true Christians on earth per their real bible with the real truth.

Isn't that what Trinitarians are? The sole possessors of truth? That's what they tell me....