Robert Sabin Responds to the Ankerberg Debate - Page 2

Baron1710 · #11 07-31-2010, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Robt. Sabin is a good friend and was one of my mentors. He is just as oneness now as he ever was. However, he is NOT a 3 stepper like when he was at ABI.

Then I am guessing he wouldn't take the same positions he did in the debate...

Hoovie · #12 07-31-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Then I am guessing he wouldn't take the same positions he did in the debate...

It's been a awhile since I listened to the debate. Am I wrong in thinking the majority of the material delt with Oneness/Trinity? I know they touched on baptism and soteriology but I don't recall that being the focus at all.

Baron1710 · #13 07-31-2010, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

It's been a awhile since I listened to the debate. Am I wrong in thinking the majority of the material delt with Oneness/Trinity? I know they touched on baptism and soteriology but I don't recall that being the focus at all.

There was some discussion about baptism and the necessity thereof.

JN Anderson · #14 07-31-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Do you have anything fresh, like, anything recorded in the last 95 years?

Yes, I posted it to my blog some time ago. It is from 2009. Click on the "Robert Sabin" tag or follow this link:

http://evidentialfaith.blogspot.com/...ert-sabin.html

I am not taking any shots at Dr. Sabin. If you are familiar with my writings then you will understand that I have used them to support Oneness theology. This does not mean = Sabin is a three stepper. Cut me some slack. In fact, read the description. I point out that SABIN EXPOSES Beisner and Martin. I try to promote critical thinking esp through the use of apologetics and there is still good stuff in his older material.

Regarding his soteriology, I could care less as this point. I realize his differences but for the sake of a discussion on the Oneness it is not what I am searching for.

mental · #15 07-31-2010, 04:48 PM

When I watched the debate I thought Sabin didn't express his position very well. When they did give Sabin chances to speak he just asked questions and let Martin have more opportunity to blather on. Urshan was next to useless. They also let Martin and Beisner get away with some really bad Greek. Not that they would have known. This debate is a good example of why Apostolics should learn original languages instead of disparaging those who do.

pelathais · #16 07-31-2010, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Click here for mp3/audio

Here Dr. Sabin responds to arguments made on the John Ankerberg Show with Nathaniel Urshan as well as Walter Martin and Calvin Beisener. His reply was recorded live in 1986 at a Oneness symposium. Here you see Sabin expose the weakness of the Trinity when Calvin Beisner and Walter Martin both reject the eternal regeneration of the second person of the Trinity. Sabin makes the point that Beisner contradicts prior written material on that subject (God in Three Persons) He also notes that Martin, Beisner and Ankerberg were give the majority of the time to speak as well.

These are some good thoughts that can help balance our perspective of this debate.

I have that same recording. Cal Beisener really fumbled quite a few things in the televised program and needed Martin to pull him out. That whole "Law of Language" thing that he brought up was incredibly naive and just plain wrong. I liked the way Martin had to sort of "shush" Beisener up and steer him away from that point. I was surprised that RS didn't jump right on it.

pelathais · #17 07-31-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Which was sorta my point when I told Anderson to present us something from the current century. I'm wondering if he's trying to throw a few "Trader" daggers at Sabin. Then again, maybe I've been watching too much TV.

Did you mean "Traitor daggers" ? Don't quite follow you.

This recording that JN has shared is old news, but useful. You are correct, however, to call for some newer material. At least IMHO.

Robert Sabin has a web site up currently at http://www.whoisjesus.com/intro.html. But the site doesn't appear to have been updated in years.

How about it folks? Is this issue even germane anymore? Before we slap "Mr. Smith" around why don't we ask why there hasn't been any new material produced on this topic since the turn of the century.

The UPC is bogged down in a war over the appropriate length of one's knickers. When "Oneness/Trinity" does come up, it's on the table just long enough to send all of the Trinitarians and most of the Oneness folks to hell... and then we're right back to examining each other's knickers.

Do any of the other groups have cogent and relevant thoughts on the nature of God?

Praxeas · #18 07-31-2010, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Robt. Sabin is a good friend and was one of my mentors. He is just as oneness now as he ever was. However, he is NOT a 3 stepper like when he was at ABI.

Right. As far as I know his Oneness views are the same. He is no longer a 3 stepper.

A side note, what difference does it make what his views are? His arguments should stand on their own basis and refuted or confirmed

Praxeas · #19 07-31-2010, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mental

When I watched the debate I thought Sabin didn't express his position very well. When they did give Sabin chances to speak he just asked questions and let Martin have more opportunity to blather on. Urshan was next to useless. They also let Martin and Beisner get away with some really bad Greek. Not that they would have known. This debate is a good example of why Apostolics should learn original languages instead of disparaging those who do.

Neither men, as far as I know, back then were very knowledgable in greek. Martin died not to long later so I don't know about Cal.

But one of Martin's main arguments for the Deity of Christ was "Cowells's rule

Now, men like Wallace are taking a different route and infact cowell's rule, giving us a definite Theos, would make for Sabellianism.

I find the irony there funny since that means WM for years was proving Sabellianism according to the latter detractors

pelathais · #20 07-31-2010, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Then I am guessing he wouldn't take the same positions he did in the debate...

He didn't really go for the "Acts 2:38 or HELL!!" line of thinking in the debate. Water baptism in Jesus' name was only an ancillary topic. The main point of the discussion was Oneness/Trinity and I think Bob Sabin still holds to Oneness as strongly as ever, though I haven't spoken to him nor heard him speak in many years.

My impression is that since he didn't really take an extreme position in the debate, he probably has had no reason to back away from it either.