Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

From Stoneking's site:

It only takes one generation to lose the truth. It does not take two or three generations. If this generation of young people does not see the Apostolic demonstration of the Spirit and Power of God, then it is lost to future generations.

Sometimes I wonder how much dependence there really is on the Spirit. Apparently not enough when we think the entire Kingdom of God will fail if we fail. This anxiety screams "I don't trust that God is in control."

I don't know about a generation but consider this. Cessationists say the gifts disappeared when the bible was complete and or the last Apostle died. Yet there are historical references afterwards and before the godhead issues were codified, to the gifts, like tongues and prophesy.

Historically, as you go along, it seems to me there are less and less references to them.

So perhaps over time they did lose some truth, like the operation of the gifts

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know that any article of faith asserts "we have the complete truth". Yes OPs do claim to have a truth that many other churches do not, such as baptism in Jesus name and the Oneness. But how is that any different than any other Christian group that claims what they believe is the truth and what the OPS believe is not the truth

Good point Prax. - for me it's not different at all, but some have wrongly equated being "in the Truth" with being Christian to the exclusion of all non OPs.

Because of this confusion, I refrain from using the term outside of the general (and Biblical) sense of The Truth being Christ, transcending denominational and doctrinal squabbles.

[Praxeas]

Jeffry, here are the commentaries, Im not sure you got a chance to read what I posted so Im gonna repost them. Read them and tell me what your impression is

Net bible commentary
tn Or possibly, "Your throne is God forever and ever." This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son's throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν...δέ (men...de) construction that connects Heb_1:7 with Heb_1:8 clearly lays out this contrast: "On the one hand, he says of the angels...on the other hand, he says of the Son." Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (theos) in Heb_1:8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Heb_1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.

A.T. Robertson from Robertson's Word Pictures
O God (ho theos). This quotation (the fifth) is from Psa_45:7. A Hebrew nuptial ode (epithalamium) for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in Joh_20:28 with the Messiah termed theos as is possible, Joh_1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Either makes good sense.

Vincent from Vincents Word Studies
I retain the vocative, although the translation of the Hebrew is doubtful. The following renderings have been proposed: “thy throne (which is a throne) of God”: “thy throne is (a throne) of God”: “God is thy throne.” Some suspect that the Hebrew text is defective.



It seems to me that all three suggest it could go either way and they choose one way. In the case of the NET commentary it seems that it was decided based on the fact that it supports the Deity of Christ

[Praxeas]

Add....

Bruce Metzger
Thus, if one reads αὐτοῦ the words ὁ θεός must be taken, not as a vocative (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicate nominative),3 an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that καί, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with ver. 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced.
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (593). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

[ouden katakrim]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know that any article of faith asserts "we have the complete truth". Yes OPs do claim to have a truth that many other churches do not, such as baptism in Jesus name and the Oneness. But how is that any different than any other Christian group that claims what they believe is the truth and what the OPS believe is not the truth

Well I didn't say "article of faith"...so that's kind of a red herring. Just because an "article of faith" doesn't use the words I used in derision does not mean that the common theme amongst OP's is not consistent with my point.

I know of plenty non-OP groups that have exclusive and distinct beliefs from other Christian groups that would only make such a claim in the spirit of liberty and would NOT condemn those who are outside of that particular flock of not being in THE flock. Nor would they condemn Christians down through the centuries based on those distinctions...which the OP's have done explicity, tacitly, by innuendo, insinuation, and by declaration.

Why say the opposite?...they used to admit it, proudly.

ouden

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ouden katakrim

Well I didn't say "article of faith"...so that's kind of a red herring. Just because an "article of faith" doesn't use the words I used in derision does not mean that the common theme amongst OP's is not consistent with my point.

I know of plenty non-OP groups that have exclusive and distinct beliefs from other Christian groups that would only make such a claim in the spirit of liberty and would NOT condemn those who are outside of that particular flock of not being in THE flock. Nor would they condemn Christians down through the centuries based on those distinctions...which the OP's have done explicity, tacitly, by innuendo, insinuation, and by declaration.

Why say the opposite?...they used to admit it, proudly.

ouden

I see it all the time on CARM...Trinitarians condemning Oneness. Saying we need what they have.

And infact they have, through the centuries, condemned other groups that did not believe what they called "the truth"...in fact a few were murdered for it. Michael Servetus was burned alive at the stake by Calvinists

[ouden katakrim]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know about a generation but consider this. Cessationists say the gifts disappeared when the bible was complete and or the last Apostle died. Yet there are historical references afterwards and before the godhead issues were codified, to the gifts, like tongues and prophesy.

Historically, as you go along, it seems to me there are less and less references to them.

So perhaps over time they did lose some truth, like the operation of the gifts

One of the weakest arguments made by those who do not speak in tongues is the cessationist argument. Partial cessationism is more probably the case, according to the historical record, but to say that complete cessationism is the case can't actually be the case based on the argument to substantiate it.

That's my opinion.

ouden

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jeffry, here are the commentaries, Im not sure you got a chance to read what I posted so Im gonna repost them. Read them and tell me what your impression is

Net bible commentary
tn Or possibly, "Your throne is God forever and ever." This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son's throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν...δέ (men...de) construction that connects Heb_1:7 with Heb_1:8 clearly lays out this contrast: "On the one hand, he says of the angels...on the other hand, he says of the Son." Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (theos) in Heb_1:8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Heb_1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.

A.T. Robertson from Robertson's Word Pictures
O God (ho theos). This quotation (the fifth) is from Psa_45:7. A Hebrew nuptial ode (epithalamium) for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in Joh_20:28 with the Messiah termed theos as is possible, Joh_1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Either makes good sense.

Vincent from Vincents Word Studies
I retain the vocative, although the translation of the Hebrew is doubtful. The following renderings have been proposed: “thy throne (which is a throne) of God”: “thy throne is (a throne) of God”: “God is thy throne.” Some suspect that the Hebrew text is defective.



It seems to me that all three suggest it could go either way and they choose one way. In the case of the NET commentary it seems that it was decided based on the fact that it supports the Deity of Christ

Prax, if you say so. Saying "your throne is God" just doesn't really fit. Saying his throne, or dominion of forever and ever makes a better fit. I'm not sure of the NET Bible's theologians but what they say the Son being at the same level as the angels is a biblical position, not necessarily partial to one's particular view of the godhead. Both you and Beisner would agree on that one. Point being, there are MULTIPLE considerations for their translations. BTW, I've never used any of these translations... and I use quite a few interlinears and parallel Bibles.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see it all the time on CARM...Trinitarians condemning Oneness. Saying we need what they have.

And infact they have, through the centuries, condemned other groups that did not believe what they called "the truth"...in fact a few were murdered for it. Michael Servetus was burned alive at the stake by Calvinists

What is your point here with this reply? What are you saying?

QUestion: Does CARM represent ALL Trinitarians? Even 20%?

The RCC also burned people, burned books, sold purgatory.... let's refocus the discussion to the here and now.

[ouden katakrim]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see it all the time on CARM...Trinitarians condemning Oneness. Saying we need what they have.

And infact they have, through the centuries, condemned other groups that did not believe what they called "the truth"...in fact a few were murdered for it. Michael Servetus was burned alive at the stake by Calvinists

Again, you misunderstand me...I said "I know" as of right now, in the present, many groups, even among those at CARM probably, who disagree with each other but would not condemn each other. I think you'll find more 'trinitarians' who practice that same type of liberality concerning OP's than the opposite...myself being one of them. Besides the original point is about making truth claims based on the historical data which, as in the OP case, is lacking. The problem with this is two fold...just on a human basis you have some Johnny come lately's who state they have THE truth thereby insulting Christians down through the centuries...and insulting God's ability to sustain, preserve, and save folks down through the centuries. So the OP comes along and insults the trinitarian personally and his God. Can you blame them?

And when it comes to stacking bodies...well I think trinitarians and arians have the modalists beat.

In my opinion, trinitarians and OP's ARE Christians. And for those who like to dump the OP into the same stew as the Mormon or the JW...well I take them to task also because when a person proclaims Christ as God...he's my brother. We can then argue about the specifics.

Nobody believes perfectly...that's why it's by grace.

ouden