Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

We both come to a crossroads of trying to explain the same truth: that Jesus is God, and that the fullness of the godhead is in Him.

We explain this hypostatic union of fully man and fully God with fanciful rhetoric, a smugness that it's all so easily comprehendable, and they try to explain it through this mysterious relationship they call the Trinity. In those "two" camps, there are literally hundreds of variations of explaining the godhead.

I don't think that's an ugly or sad thing. We can all grasp at this topic, open our hearts toward it, and behold God in our own ways, and that's a beautiful thing. He's not waiting to be codified or dogmatized. His mystery can't be put into a bottle, a box or some tidy little creed. The point is that the Messiah who came, was also God in flesh... a product of the Incarnation. Jesus was God, and Jesus died and rose from the grave. This is our minimum confession.

We can cut each other with swords all we want on the other details of which we all "give it our best shot." But it's sad to me to see both sides swinging the sword of dogma in an area that it isn't necessary.

Truth is important and a must when it comes to worshipping God and actually knowing God, but we don't need to swing swords. I like irenic discussion.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by DAII

The tentative dates are in March ... awesome .... plenty of time .... I'll pray God open your and Jorge's eyes as to salvation as well.

March 4 and 5. Please pray. I would never turn that down. However, you do have plenty of time to make a reservation, scribble down your questions and bring them with you in March, 2011. Simple.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

A panel Q&A? What's that? Does that mean the only ones asking questions are a group of non-confrontational yes men?

Prax, can you be anymore of a pessimist? Aren't you Oneness after all? How about praying and believing that there will be productive dialog? Want another question?

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Truth is important and a must when it comes to worshipping God and actually knowing God, but we don't need to swing swords. I like irenic discussion.

Mizpeh, I always get something from your posts. Thanks for posting!

[Sam]

[QUOTE=Maximilian;937108]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

We both come to a crossroads of trying to explain the same truth: that Jesus is God, and that the fullness of the godhead is in Him.

We explain this hypostatic union of fully man and fully God with fanciful rhetoric, a smugness that it's all so easily comprehendable, and they try to explain it through this mysterious relationship they call the Trinity. In those "two" camps, there are literally hundreds of variations of explaining the godhead.

I don't think that's an ugly or sad thing. We can all grasp at this topic, open our hearts toward it, and behold God in our own ways, and that's a beautiful thing. He's not waiting to be codified or dogmatized. His mystery can't be put into a bottle, a box or some tidy little creed. The point is that the Messiah who came, was also God in flesh... a product of the Incarnation. Jesus was God, and Jesus died and rose from the grave. This is our minimum confession.

We can cut each other with swords all we want on the other details of which we all "give it our best shot." But it's sad to me to see both sides swinging the sword of dogma in an area that it isn't necessary.

May I quote that on Facebook? I will either give your name as Maximilian on an Apostolic Forum or just as someone posting on an Apostolic forum if you wish.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

So God is a person who became flesh?

Do we really speak of God as a person outside of the incarnation?

This is from Daniel Segraves blog of January 20, 2009
ref: http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html


The Trinitarian team affirms that the words “nature” and “person,” while helpful, are fallible attempts to understand the unity and relational life of the Godhead. Indeed, it is acknowledged that there are “Trinitarian theologians who would question the use of this language to describe the life of the one God who is eternally distinct as ‘Father, Son, and Spirit,’ especially in the light of the fact that ‘persons’ in ancient Trinitarian writings did not carry the same meaning that it does today (as referring to separate and individual consciousnesses).” This affirmation is a hopeful sign for further dialogue; a great deal of the debate centers around the use of the word “person.” In their criticism of Trinitarian theology, many Oneness Pentecostals have understood the word “person” in the modern sense. They suspect that some Trinitarians who – like many Oneness Pentecostals – are not schooled in the intricate and subtle nuances of ancient Greek and Latin theologians, also understand the word in the modern sense. When the word “person” is read this way, it is difficult to see how the idea of three “persons” in the Godhead avoids tritheism. Alister E. McGrath’s simplified answer to the question, “How can God be three persons and one person at the same time?” may be helpful.

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

But they don't say that God is one person. I do.
...

in our KJV, Hebrews 1:1-3 says:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:


In Job 13:7-10, Job says:
7 Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?
8 Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?
9 Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him?
10 He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

As of July 2010 Dr. Ferguson is Oneness. He confirmed this to me and Jason Weatherly (debater from Arkansas) via telephone this year. There will also be a book coming out soon by a Oneness author that actually references Ferguson's material, which include commentaries on Genesis, John, and Acts. I'll post links when the books is available.

I have a "book" titled "God Veiled In Flesh, A Commentary on the Book of John" by Paul Ferguson with a copyright date of 1971. It actually is 87 mimeographed (?) pages of 8 1/2 by 11 paper printed on one side and stapled in a paper cover.

I think at the time he published that he was planting a church in Wheaton, IL.

I've often wondered if Paul Ferguson was still alive and teaching/preaching and if he had other books available.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

I have a "book" titled "God Veiled In Flesh, A Commentary on the Book of John" by Paul Ferguson with a copyright date of 1971. It actually is 87 mimeographed (?) pages of 8 1/2 by 11 paper printed on one side and stapled in a paper cover.

I think at the time he published that he was planting a church in Wheaton, IL.

I've often wondered if Paul Ferguson was still alive and teaching/preaching and if he had other books available.

I've checked the Pentecostal Publishing House, Amazon.com, and ebay for books by Paul Ferguson and have not found any.

Can anyone point me in the right direction to find his books?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

This is from Daniel Segraves blog of January 20, 2009
ref: http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html

. . . .

Segraves' approach is accurate while also being non-confrontational. I like this tack. Of course, he is dealing with a group of people where the vast majority reciprocate. I think a good discussion can follow from this.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

I've checked the Pentecostal Publishing House, Amazon.com, and ebay for books by Paul Ferguson and have not found any.

Can anyone point me in the right direction to find his books?

Sam, can you scan that mimeograph of Ferguson's? If not, I can do it for you and ship it back. Just sayin.'

I found this at Amazon.com - http://www.amazon.com/Big-Argument-T.../dp/0890514690

Ferguson is one of the "24" writers. http://books.google.com/books?id=-3Q...fessor&f=false

He contribute an article here: (Free download) http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/b...shVol16No1.pdf