David Bernard´s book on oneness

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by acerrak

prax has accepted jason dulles theology on the Godhead, and modalistic monachanism doesnt do justice describing the godhead either.

i dont believe God has 2 modes of comsmic transcendent as described by dulle,

cause there is both external and internal differences

we have two totally different wills, 2 minds of thinking one from the father and one from the son. Though United in purpose.

Where does Jason say he believes in two modes of comsmic transcendent? What does that mean?

Jason actually uses the fact that there are two minds/wills to prove his case.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Where does Jason say he believes in two modes of comsmic transcendent? What does that mean?

Jason actually uses the fact that there are two minds/wills to prove his case.

i will correct myself, he believes in a comic transcendent and incarnate mode(s) of exsistance.

and really doesnt proove any point, he is formulating a Personal opinion. which i disagree, i dont believe what he explains to be a good representation of the godhead,

because there is both external and internal differences, he does not really deal with the internal just because he includes 2 wills and minds and states its one person does Jesus injustice.

In a recent blog article titled “Reifying Natures” Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle states:


The standard way of explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures. The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y. On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature.


"It cannot be said that the Son is the same as the Father, or that the Father is the same as the Son. The Son by definition is both divine and human, while the Father is only divine. Although the deity of the Son is of the same essence as that of the Father, the deity of the Son is inextricably joined with the humanity to form an existence distinct from God's existence as a transcendent Spirit. The deity of the Father is in the Son, but the Son's existence is different from the Father's."--Jason Dulle

Jason dulle is like me he is a odd ball caught up in the middle of oneness pentacostal doctrine and trinitarian.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Has anyone read it?

We are studying it in our Bible School...

I have it and always thought it was an excellent book on the issue!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by acerrak

i will correct myself, he believes in a comic transcendent and incarnate mode(s) of exsistance.

and really doesnt proove any point, he is formulating a Personal opinion. which i disagree, i dont believe what he explains to be a good representation of the godhead,

because there is both external and internal differences, he does not really deal with the internal just because he includes 2 wills and minds and states its one person does Jesus injustice.

In a recent blog article titled “Reifying Natures” Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle states:


The standard way of explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures. The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y. On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature.


"It cannot be said that the Son is the same as the Father, or that the Father is the same as the Son. The Son by definition is both divine and human, while the Father is only divine. Although the deity of the Son is of the same essence as that of the Father, the deity of the Son is inextricably joined with the humanity to form an existence distinct from God's existence as a transcendent Spirit. The deity of the Father is in the Son, but the Son's existence is different from the Father's."--Jason Dulle

Jason dulle is like me he is a odd ball caught up in the middle of oneness pentacostal doctrine and trinitarian.

I doubt Jason uses the term comic or cosmic, but yes there are two modes, God transcendent and God incarnate. Jason's view is pretty much Oneness. Essentially Jason has clarified what Bernard tried to do

[Jay]

I like and own the book. The only problem that I had was that he seemed to use Trinitarian terms to defend the Oneness position. This I feel weakens to effect, but as far as the doctrine goes, I can not find fault. It is well worth the reading, possibly the best book I have read on the topic of the Godhead. I am looking for others as well.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jay

I like and own the book. The only problem that I had was that he seemed to use Trinitarian terms to defend the Oneness position. This I feel weakens to effect, but as far as the doctrine goes, I can not find fault. It is well worth the reading, possibly the best book I have read on the topic of the Godhead. I am looking for others as well.

Trinitarians don't own the english language. Let's exclude every word Trinitarians and Pagans use, guess what's left? Nothing. Words are simply how we communicate.

[Jay]

I am not refering to the language, but to the terms that we use. The simple fact is that for more the better part of 2,000 years Trinitarians have set the terms that defined the debate. I simply refuse to use their terminology when discussing the Godhead if at all possible. It is time that we used the Bible to set the terms of the debate. The only thing they have are philosophy and tradition. These are no defense against the Word.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I doubt Jason uses the term comic or cosmic, but yes there are two modes, God transcendent and God incarnate. Jason's view is pretty much Oneness. Essentially Jason has clarified what Bernard tried to do

actually no he did not, and yes Jason uses the word cosmic

4. It is a distinction between YHWH's transcendent (cosmic) and incarnate modes of existence.-Jason dulle

Dulle has thought Bernard's Christology Nestorian for some time.
In his article "Reifying Natures" look again at what he writes here:


On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature. What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.” What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.” Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities. On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another. The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.—Jason Dulle (Reifying Natures=two persons)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by acerrak

actually no he did not, and yes Jason uses the word cosmic

4. It is a distinction between YHWH's transcendent (cosmic) and incarnate modes of existence.-Jason dulle

Dulle has thought Bernard's Christology Nestorian for some time.
In his article "Reifying Natures" look again at what he writes here:


On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature. What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.” What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.” Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities. On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another. The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.—Jason Dulle (Reifying Natures=two persons)

Im not sure where in there I was supposed to see Jason accusing Bernard of Nestorianism, but that is beside the point. Jason does not confirm Nestorianism. Rather he explains and improves on Bernards inadequate explanations.

I've said this before but I heard DB himself deny that natures pray, saying "persons pray". So he either changed his theology or that confirms my point about how his book was just not well written or thought out

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im not sure where in there I was supposed to see Jason accusing Bernard of Nestorianism, but that is beside the point. Jason does not confirm Nestorianism. Rather he explains and improves on Bernards inadequate explanations.

I've said this before but I heard DB himself deny that natures pray, saying "persons pray". So he either changed his theology or that confirms my point about how his book was just not well written or thought out

and i agree with you prax