Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

What would you think of someone who wrote books about how to interpret statutes without ever having been trained in the interpretation of statutes and then after having training held to exactly the same views?

I would say either he wasted his time or he is only interested in pushing the views he already had. No real learning took place. i have watched men who as their theological level was raised reexamine their views and constantly adjust them to the truth that they had been exposed to.

Is theological training a must to TEACH it? HECK ya.

A knowledge of the scriptures is must but I would disagree with you that a formal theological education is a must.

1) Many of the apostles were unlearned and they were the ones Jesus sent to spread not gospel. He didn't go to the learned, religious folks of his day.

2)The Holy Spirit is more than able to teach us and help us to understand his word. John 14:26, Ps 119:99, 1 John 2:27

I love theology. I went through all of the theological courses at Reclaiming the Mind ministries. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/?page_id=8 I've purchased many books to read on different areas of theology and the vast majority of them are not written by Oneness Pentecostals. This fall I'm starting my third semester of biblical Greek at a small Baptist Bible school in my area. I've spent time listening to the some of the courses at Biblical Training ( Church History with Bray and Philosophy with Nash) http://www.biblicaltraining.org/free-seminary-classes. Despite all of this, I don't believe that someone has to have formal theological education to come to a knowledge of the truth and to be able to understand the word of God. If DB had the truth to begin with, no theological education is going to change that, it can only reinforce it, imo.

I became the judge and jury the minute my mind had the ability to form its own thoughts. No need to interpret thoughts and intents, they have been made abundantly clear in propaganda book after book published by WAP, which it is good they have because no one else would publish the garbage that is passed off as scholarship.

But you are laying motive to DB when you said, "David Bernard does nothing but regurgitate the same talking points like a political hack on the evening news. He wrote most of his "theology" with almost no theological training and then after having some training he clings to the same views." You are, imo, basically saying that DB isn't honest with the word of God. And that he has no integrity because when he furthered his theological education, then he should have changed his views (to be more like yours perhaps?). Since he still believes what he did before going to college, he therefore must be intellectually dishonest or maybe you might like to accuse him of cognitive dissonance as well. I know of someone who left the faith upon advanced theological examination (Bart Ehrman). I know of others, a Oneness Pentecostal from CLC who became a Trinitarian upon further education. I think they are both walking in error. And quite frankly I think you are being unkind and uncharitable in your assessment of DB. Let me also add just so you know I have no special affinity with DB. I'm not related to him. I disagree with all of his "holiness standards". I don't hold to his Oneness Christology but I fall more in line with Jason Dulle in that regard.

BTW, who made you the expert on what passes for scholarship?

No fear at all, why would a self righteous jerk like me care?
David Bernard is not superior to anyone on this forum, he has a man made position and a bookshelf of propaganda, which, at least some of those, who have a legitimate education in theology reject.

Are you saying that DB has an illegitimate theological education? And do you really think with all of DB's education that he hasn't budged on anything that he believed prior to taking any theological courses? Have you asked him?

Where do you get your defintion of orthodoxy from? LOL!! The RCC? The early councils?

I would submit that you have filled your mind with theological propaganda of one sort or the other from someone as well or many someones. You have to decide if that "propaganda" lines up with the word of God. As for DB having a bookshelf full of propaganda (which I assume you are using the word prejoratively), that is simply your opinion and nothing more.

Are you going to start citing those "experts" who disagree with DB because their names will do nothing for me even if I recognize them. They have their own agenda as well. I cannot tell you how much I detest Calvinism yet I believe John Piper has a passion for Christ and I have be blessed by some of his writings but I couldn't stomach reading past the first chapter of his book, Desiring God. Blech!!!! I would be loathe to insinuate that John Piper deliberately twists scripture to his own ends.

I am not wowed by DB. I don't find him persuasive or a fantastic writer. If that bothers you then >.

It doesn't bother me at all. I'm not a huge fan of DB. But then I haven't been particulary persuaded by anything you have written either.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Ho hum.

Another meaningless debate between DB and some Trinitarian...who cares...same old stuff over and over. Lets gather a group who all swallow everything I have to say like I am the momma bird and bring in and unknown outsider for me to puff up my chest and pretend I whipped him. Meaningless propaganda, regurgitation, and poor exegesis.

Who is puffing up the chest here, Baron Peacock? You come across as an arrogant know it all. Are you just trying to ruffle some feathers?

Have you seen DB be ungracious in debate? I haven't and I've watched one and listened to another. Yet you are being extremely ungracious and uncharitable towards him and those who disagree with him as well as toward those that agree with him. You accuse those who agree with DB of being mindless and not able to feed themselves on the word of God and to interpret it for themselves. Is there anyone you would give an "Amen" to in agreement with something they said? Does that mean you are following that person hook, line, and sinker?

[mizpeh]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Awww please. Defame? To stay clearly that I find his amateur theology weak is defamation. perhaps you should check your dictionary first.

I didn't check the dictionary first but I have since and stand by my use of the word, defame.

1.
to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate: The newspaper editorial defamed the politician.
2.
Archaic . to disgrace; bring dishonor upon.
3.
Archaic . to accuse.

Let me remind you of what you said,

"These guys aren't interested in Apologetics and debate, they are interested in propaganda. David Bernard does nothing but regurgitate the same talking points like a political hack on the evening news. He wrote most of his "theology" with almost no theological training and then after having some training he clings to the same views.

The garbage that is placed under the umbrella of Oneness, which has its own set of problems, cannot be defended so it turns into a Scripture twisting propaganda party."

Might make for some interesting threads but I doubt it qualifies for solid Biblical exegesis or apologetics."

I don't care how many times he claims it is from God, I seem to recall men like Jones, Hitler, Koresh and the list goes on and on who claimed the same thing. So what? does that make them untouchable?

I've never heard DB lay claim to divine revelation when it comes to doctrine. He leans quite heavily on the Bible for much of what he teaches, at least from what I've read. Have you heard DB say "God told me this" and then dismiss what the scriptures teach?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Is there anyone you would give an "Amen" to in agreement with something they said? Does that mean you are following that person hook, line, and sinker?

mizpeh -- AMEN !!

and yes, I will follow you hook, line and sinker. (as long as the fish are bitin)

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Hearsay is testimony that is given to prove the truth of the matter asserted, without any of the exception applying, and there are plenty.

It is a legal term and does not apply to the general situation of repeating what someone said. There are many cases in court where people do give their account of what someone else said. As long as it is not testimony intended to prove the truth of the matter asserted. An example would be, the witness said, "Joe said 'I am going to kill him'" this is valid to show state of mind but not valid as proof that Joe killed someone.

Hearsay is thrown out, especially when the witness claims to have a written statement. The judge will always demand for the written evidence to be produced. And by the way this isn't a murder trial.

I can just imagine the Apostles saying look I have this letter from Barnabas but I'm not going to show it to you, I'll just quote the juicy parts. If it's legit it will be produced...

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

Hearsay is thrown out, especially when the witness claims to have a written statement. The judge will always demand for the written evidence to be produced. And by the way this isn't a murder trial.

I can just imagine the Apostles saying look I have this letter from Barnabas but I'm not going to show it to you, I'll just quote the juicy parts. If it's legit it will be produced...

So you have went on and on about what I didn't post, though I did post it later, and continue to show your ignorance of the hearsay rules.

I produced it stop whining about it.

Asking for the document to be produced would be the best evidence rule not hearsay.

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

So you have went on and on about what I didn't post, though I did post it later, and continue to show your ignorance of the hearsay rules.

I produced it stop whining about it.

Asking for the document to be produced would be the best evidence rule not hearsay.

Uhhhh, your witness counselor!!!

[Baron1710]

[QUOTE=mizpeh;929114]

I didn't check the dictionary first but I have since and stand by my use of the word, defame.

1.
to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate: The newspaper editorial defamed the politician.
2.
Archaic . to disgrace; bring dishonor upon.
3.
Archaic . to accuse.

Let me remind you of what you said,

I've never heard DB lay claim to divine revelation when it comes to doctrine. He leans quite heavily on the Bible for much of what he teaches, at least from what I've read. Have you heard DB say "God told me this" and then dismiss what the scriptures teach?

Now perhaps you can get someone to interpret it for you. I did not defame him by stating my views of his work.

He leans heavily on SELECTED portions of scripture to the exclusion of the rest. One could never come to the conclusions he does about jewelry without a selective use of Scripture.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

A knowledge of the scriptures is must but I would disagree with you that a formal theological education is a must.

1) Many of the apostles were unlearned and they were the ones Jesus sent to spread not gospel. He didn't go to the learned, religious folks of his day.

They spent 3 years being taught by Jesus directly I think they had a top notch education. Not to mention The bulk of the New Testament was written by who? Paul for theology and Luke for History both well prepared for such a task.

And no I don't think that is anything like being led by the Spirit, I hear people claim this for every weird theology that comes along I am sure Magic Hair came from "the leading of the Spirit."

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Then don't do the idiotic, bottom-feeder, "bitter" thing when it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever to the discussion.

Now that was funny. Have you looked at your avatar lately? "Troublemaker"??