My response to Robert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limey_Bob
Hey,
I've just got banned for life from yet another Oneness forum (EDIT) I always try to place a selection of my posts in a great many forums to attempt to encourage criticism of such posts, which are the basis of my two future books.
|
I was informed about this post. He was not banned. Of course coming from him I am not surprised he said he was or thinks he was....
Quote:
|
Well, basically the content of these posts have been almost exclusively completely ignored in this forum and the usual; don't tell us what we believe, or how dare you criticise Oneness stuff, or some obscure sidetracks then began! I found it funny that over a 3 month period, not one person had the courage to reply in any way to my post on Isaiah 9:6; a post which I've been revising and adding to since 1999.
|
Actually you have not been there in months. When you were we tackled all of your topics, which you spammed us with..so many even you could not keep track of which discussion was which and who said what
Quote:
|
I've discovered one thing though, nothing really annoys Oneness folk (apart from asking the question was Luther, Spurgeon etc saved), is your telling them that you clearly understand their doctrine, this is their position and this is my rebuttal of it. Oneness folk seem to love to destroy the faith of the more simple and Biblically uneducated Trinitarian with a straightforward Oneness message such as obey Acts 2:38 or go to hell and Jesus is the Father incarnate, the Father being his deity and the Son is his humanity etc.
|
Actually it was you that came to OUR forum...so perhaps I can say Trinitarians love to try to destroy the faith of Oneness Pentecostals. As for Luther being saved? I have no idea. He did though believe in baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. Maybe he was not saved, maybe he was. What difference does it make when the bible is supposed to be our rule of faith? Was Mother Teresa saved?
Quote:
|
It's truly angered the people in this forum no end that I've given both a clear definition of Oneness followed by a clear rebuttal.
|
LOL..who needs a fan club when you are your own biggest supporter. It always cracks me up to hear people say things like this about the groups they hate and spend an obsessive amount of time chasing after. Even OPs and other groups have these sort of characters. The proud boastings that they are some sort of champion of their faith against some vile foe ::LOL
Quote:
|
Their response is that I'm an idiot who doesn't know that they are talking about.
|
I have met men that are Trinitarians that I can say are NOT idiots....I don't know if any are members here. I know some that were members here in the past and I sometimes see on other boards. Really what it comes down to Robert is not knowledge, but morality and personality. That's usually the reason people get booted from forums. For breaking the rules or otherwise being annoying
Quote:
|
OK I then responded, if I'm wrong that Oneness denies that the Son is eternal (as the Son), then please prove me wrong by stating clearly that the Son was begotten at Bethlehem and had no pre-existence before about 4 BC (AS THE SON).
|
Uh, you are not wrong. We admit that we deny the Son existed AS The son prior to the incarnation. No argument there. Never was.
Quote:
|
Rather than rise to my challenge (and get a good whupping form me) they, as many Oneness folk have also done here in this CARM forum, they simply retort to refusing to define what Oneness is - but here's the catch they still insist that my posts are wrong, I'm uneducated and stupid to boot and I should basically read X number of books and listen to X number of tapes before I put my foot in it.
|
Again, the fan club is supporting himself lol
I defined Oneness hundreds of times, even to you. Each time you either chose to ignore what I said or you chose to reword and reinterpret everything I say so you can form some sort of distorted strawman argument. I have known you for close to a decade and in that time have answered the same questions over and over and over, even reworded. Then you act like you were never answered....ever. No matter how many times I say what I believe you will respond that I don't really believe what I just said and that I believe what YOU say I believe, then you start refuting what you claim I believe and not what I claim I believe. This merry go round has been done over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum and when and if you get banned it's usually for that reason. Not because you are The Great Trinitarian Champion come to take on the evil Oneness Pentecostals
Quote:
|
So they won't even agree with me that the Father incarnated inside the body of the Son in Oneness theology, or that baptism with the formula 'Lord Jesus Christ' is necessary for salvation in Oneness, or that the Son isn't eternal (as the Son) in Oneness theology!
|
Here is where you show your lack of knowledge. There are different OPs just as there are different Trinitarians. Some really do NOT believe you have to be baptized in Jesus name, absolutely, in order to be saved. Others believe it is a necessary absolute requirement and others believe it is a necessity but that God can save someone based on faith without baptism should they be unable to be baptized before dying or something like that. You should study OPs more. There are OPs that believe salvation happens AT initial faith and repentance.
Quote:
|
In another forum I even had Praxeas (who posts here in anther name) agreeing with me about a year ago (after constant demands on my part that he answer my questions), that the Son was eternal as the Son just as I believed, and the Son had eternally existed together with the Father as a 'he' not as an impersonal 'it.'
|
Not sure what to call this...either a complete fabrication or a delusion, but it never happened Robert. I have NEVER said the Son was eternal AS the Son just as you believed. I denied it over and over. Anyone can read through the threads themselves and see. Second, I do not post here under another nick.
Third it was not after constant demands on your part (pat yourself again fan club)..I have answered you over and over and over and over and OVER for OVER the last decade the same answers. Nor did I say the Son was another HE with the Father in eternity. I said the Son pre-existed the incarnation AS God, not as the Son. HE (the person of God) became the Son AT the incarnation. Thus when I speak of the Son I am still speaking of the same Personal Deity that always existed, but now with the human nature.
Quote:
|
This truly shocked me, even though it took constant badgering on my part for weeks to get him to answer me directly and honestly.
|
::LOL
Quote:
|
I though to myself, well where do he go from here, what he's just agreed to is what we (Trinitarians believe about the Son), only for him to later on that day state in another post the usual Oneness claim that the Son was only eternal as God before Bethlehem and not as the Son!!!!
|
Again, complete fabrication or delusion, but it never happened. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you did start a LOT of new threads you were unable to keep track of and got confused...perhaps it was someone else that said such a thing, but it was not me.
Quote:
|
So if he says that the Son is eternal and an eternal 'he' who has always existed alongside the Father (who is also an eternal 'he'), incredibly this is then negated by his redefining the term 'Son' as 'God,' I gave up at that state, I done my best and this constant redefinition of terms is simply beyond my abilities to deal with it ...... WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THEY USE IT ON THE MORE CAPABLE TRINITARIAN.
|
and here you are calling yourself of course THE MORE CAPABLE TRINITARIAN
TLM is THE MORE CAPABLE TRINITARIAN. Not you, but Im sure others will rise to the occasion and get your back. But in my opinion I have met more capable Trinitarians than you who can also keep the conversations from being confused
Quote:
|
We need to discuss post-modernism in Oneness apologetics and how the more capabale Oneness folk use undefinable and unclear terms and endless meaningless vagueness to avoid debating the more capable Trinitarians.
|
Oh brother....Robert the problem is...if this is a post modernistic view of Oneness, you have completely distorted it or misunderstood it or intentionally misrepresented it. I have experienced this with you over and over, as I said for over the last decade and I have discovered it's impossible to have a coherent dialog with you personally
Quote:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I’m in the process of writing two books on Oneness Pentecostalism. These books will provide simple and brief answers to the key Oneness proof texts and theories. I aim to cover about 100 to 150 verses in the first book such as; Genesis 1:26, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1, John 10:30, John 14:6, Acts 2:38 etc. The second book will contain about 50 sections such as: Atonement atrocities, Baptismal formula, Baptismal regeneration, The Son, Techniques for Evangelising Oneness Pentecostals, The Jesus Trick and Tongues:
Robert
|
Your evangelizing techniques leave a lot to be desired. Spreading lies about someone on other forums is not the way. Misrepresenting what someone says, is not the way. Patting yourself on the back as some great champion that all OPs run from in fear is DEFINITELY not the way ::LOL
Linear Mode
