Urshan and Sabin Face the Music or Defend the Truth??: Video

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Yes, it has been a while. I do remember that Bro. Sabin tried to save face...but I think that today another debate would have different results. Not sure why it was brought up really...it has been so long ago.
Blessings, Rhoni

EXACTLY. We, as most organizations continue to evolve, whether we use 1945 as a reference or 1985.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Raven

Thanks for posting this, Dan. I had never watched it in its entirety.

Raven

Kinda funny....this is a repeat thread someone else started a couple weeks ago already and posted the link to the videos and here comes Dan reposting it

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think you've answered your own question there, Dan. Columbia.

Uh...but what did the man take at Columbia? Was his major in Theology? Did he have any greek or hebrew studies?

BTW if you all study out what WM says you'll find that many greek scholars will disagree with some of what he says....but WM makes it look as though he knows what he is talking about. It's all in the presentation...not to mention having a biased host

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Uh...but what did the man take at Columbia? Was his major in Theology? Did he have any greek or hebrew studies?

BTW if you all study out what WM says you'll find that many greek scholars will disagree with some of what he says....but WM makes it look as though he knows what he is talking about. It's all in the presentation...not to mention having a biased host

In particular the pre-existence of the Son of God.

However, I am not so sure the question focused on total agreement, but rather, whether one can acknowlege the possibility of Christianity and Christ's work outside of a unified theological preception of soteriology.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The thing that stood out to me the most was Cal Beisner's "law of grammar" where he said any pronoun-preposition-pronoun combination indicated that you must have two or more persons either speaking or being spoken of. He made his point and nobody touched it. Subsequently I remember some Trinitarians downplayed it.

But I thought that Beisner (even though he was obviously wrong) was getting at the heart of several underlying assumptions that most "orthodox" Trinitarians have. I thought that should have been responded to, but Rbt, Sabin seemed to just give him this "WHAT?" kind of look and the show moved on.

Ankerberg's okay as the silver plumed scholar/host but he often comes across as condescending. Walter Martin of course does his Brooklyn best to dominate the discussion.

I feel bad for NA's infamous "Am I your brother?" lapse. That really gets to the heart of our differences within the Apostolic movement. Ambiguous silence and a blank stare doesn't really give the rest of us much guidance to follow. It just reveals the turmoil that goes on in "our house."

What OPs and Trinitarians don't realize is this was a total set up from the get go. Other groups avoided the JAS and for good reason. WM was a master debater back then....being a master debater does not mean he is more right of course.

The JA show was taped over several days but was heavily edited in favor of the Trinitarians. This became a later "issue" when RS agreed to debates with associates of CRI. They stipulated that they had to have the same rights to the recorded material and that they were NOT to be edited.

All that though does not change NUs reaction...which leads into the next point...

WM had the majority of the time to speak. He ran the show. It was supposed to be a debate on the Oneness vs Trinity...so what in the world does a personal confrontation like this have to do with whose theological view of the godhead is true or not? Nothing. What it does do however is set the stage emotionally in favor of WM and CB in the hearts and minds of every Trinitarian watching that day and later. I would not want to answer either if I were NU. He was put on the spot. After saying "no you are not my brother in Christ" it did not matter WHAT WM or CB said after that. They could have discussed coffee and donuts...that Q&A effectively biased the audience against Oneness by being told "You are all going to hell"

That was why WM asked that. What I would have liked to have seen is a concrete answer by WM to the same question in reverse.

Next point...WM comes out in the beginning with his unorthodox Trinitarianism rejecting the Eternal Son doctrine. He says it was a heresy of Origen and says 'we both agree' referring to Cal.

However later on CB betrays WM and comes out in favor of the Eternal Son doctrine.

WM believes the pre-incarnate Son was the Logos only and was not a son until the incarnation. This shows duplicity on their part. See this is what I mean...the debate was not about an honest presentation of facts. WM has no intention of that happening. It's ONLY about making one side look bad to the audience

WM speaks as though he is an authority on the greek, but he is not. He quotes Colwells rule to support his view of Jn 1:1 but Daniel Wallace says Colwells rule only "permits" such a view and rejects it as do many other greek scholars now. One reason they reject it ironically is that a definite theos in the second clause is, according to them, Sabellious.

I had or have a tape that was done post discussion at some sort of Oneness symposium or such where Sabin discussed this show. He says that WM at one point used Sir Anthony Buzzard (I think it was) against Sabin but then this persons nephew contacted Sabin and told him that Buzzard actually agreed with Sabin. Does anyone recall WM quoting this man in the debate? The interesting thing is Buzzard is unitarian

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

In particular the pre-existence of the Son of God.

However, I am not so sure the question focused on total agreement, but rather, whether one can acknowlege the possibility of Christianity and Christ's work outside of a unified theological preception of soteriology.

WM does NOT believe in the pre-existence of the Son of God as the Son. He denies a pre-existent son...or did before he passed away. He favors the Eternal Logos view. The logos became the Son at the incarnation

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

WM does NOT believe in the pre-existence of the Son of God as the Son. He denies a pre-existent son...or did before he passed away. He favors the Eternal Logos view. The logos became the Son at the incarnation

Yes. A fact that has separated him from even his succesor on the Bible Answer Man Radio Show.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Yes. A fact that has separated him from even his succesor on the Bible Answer Man Radio Show.

His successor has been in hot water before. It's sad that most of the listeners are ignorant of this man. Anyways, this guy is a huge defender of the RCC....

[stmatthew]

I would surely hope that this is edited a lot, because this is some of the most pitiful stuff I have seen. WHY not just answer the question as stated. NO, he is not my brother because he has not responded to the gospel in obedience to Acts 2:38.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I would surely hope that this is edited a lot, because this is some of the most pitiful stuff I have seen. WHY not just answer the question as stated. NO, he is not my brother because he has not responded to the gospel in obedience to Acts 2:38.

ST Matt. I have been in UPC churches for over 20 years and have had what would mostly qualify as PAJC pastors. I feel confident that none of them would limit the term "brother" to Oneness Pentecostals in particular. Not then, and especially not now.

It is pitiful to me that one could not simply say; "YES" - not because we agree but in spite of us reaching different conclusions regarding the response to the gospel message.