tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4234593785068862632..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Many antichrists have comeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22623925878319188512011-07-09T08:17:58.491-04:002011-07-09T08:17:58.491-04:00I realize that you've been engaged with Dale T...I realize that you've been engaged with Dale Tuggy for the sake of the truth and not for "attaboys", but I've been following this series with great interest because of its implications for, and application to, Oneness Pentecostalism and I feel that I need to say, "attaboy Steve"!<br /><br />It's clear that Dr. Tuggy is a bright enough guy, but his penchant for rhetorical flourishes and appeals to authority (mostly his own it seems) are no match for the truth of Scripture ably defended and advanced by a saint of Christ.<br /><br />Thanks to you and T-blogue for being valiant for the truth, my hat is off to you!<br /><br />In Christ,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23296904214885552782011-07-08T19:16:16.499-04:002011-07-08T19:16:16.499-04:00I would also add these Words from that period of J...I would also add these Words from that period of Jeremiah's prophesying:<br /><br /><b><i>Jer 9:1 Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people! <br />Jer 9:2 Oh that I had in the desert a travelers' lodging place, that I might leave my people and go away from them! For they are all adulterers, a company of treacherous men. <br />Jer 9:3 They bend their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has grown strong in the land; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know me, declares the LORD. <br />Jer 9:4 Let everyone beware of his neighbor, and put no trust in any brother, for every brother is a deceiver, and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer. <br />Jer 9:5 Everyone deceives his neighbor, and no one speaks the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies; they weary themselves committing iniquity. <br />Jer 9:6 Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, declares the LORD. <br />Jer 9:7 Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: "Behold, I will refine them and test them, for what else can I do, because of my people? <br />Jer 9:8 Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully; with his mouth each speaks peace to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him. </i></b><br /><br />For me, there is a general sense that something is amiss with him.<br /><br />Someone, at some blog, commented they thought David was a closet Baha'i believer? He certainly does not believe in the Trinity.<br /><br />Agreed, Annoyed, David W. is widely read, full of knowledge; and can speak to the knowledge of those he has read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83466270884619779812011-07-08T19:04:01.139-04:002011-07-08T19:04:01.139-04:00"Many have come"!
Yes.
It seems to me,..."Many have come"!<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />It seems to me, with David W., there is something similar as this with Israel's wise during the prophecy period of Jeremiah:<br /><br /><b><i>Jer 8:4 "You shall say to them, Thus says the LORD: When men fall, do they not rise again? If one turns away, does he not return? <br />Jer 8:5 Why then has this people turned away in perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit; they refuse to return. <br />Jer 8:6 I have paid attention and listened, but they have not spoken rightly; no man relents of his evil, saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turns to his own course, like a horse plunging headlong into battle. <br />Jer 8:7 Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but my people know not the rules of the LORD. <br />Jer 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. <br />Jer 8:9 The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them? </i></b><br /><br />My mentoring Pastor/Teacher taught his Ministers that when we come across someone and there is a gut sense, a pit in the deep places of our being, we are to take note of it and be mindful and watchful as it seems this is one indicator that there is something wrong with that someone. With David W., I have that sense, that pit in my stomach. It's not clear to me yet what it is so I stay cautious and vigilant when reading what he writes or after making comments directly to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76555565931352139782011-07-08T15:51:37.685-04:002011-07-08T15:51:37.685-04:00****
typo correction:
THE basic exegesis = the BA...****<br />typo correction:<br /><br />THE basic exegesis = the BASIC exegesis<br />****ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62079601280979359522011-07-08T15:49:21.346-04:002011-07-08T15:49:21.346-04:00Dale's argumentation was not only anachronisti...Dale's argumentation was not only anachronistic and equivocal, but as Steve pointed out, it also committed the petitio principii fallacy. <br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-shellgame.html<br /><br />Also, his argumentation was (in my subjective opinion) overly aprioristic. Dale didn't do THE basic exegesis to support his assumptions and intuitions. He just referred to his future works (which may or may not provide the necessary sub-arguments). He could have at least given us a taste of his exegesis. He just chided Steve for not accepting his Unitarian intuitions.<br /><br />The problem is our intuitions may or may not be right. For example, take these two intuitions.<br /><br />#1. God by necessity, if truly supreme must be "one" (in some ultimate sense).<br /><br />#2. God, being supremely great, must be beyond our full comprehension and understanding. <br /><br />By intuition #1, some people come to Unitarian conclusions. Yet, those same people often also hold to intuition #2. But if intuition #2 were believed, why automatically reject the possibility that this "singular" God could also be, in some sense, "plural"?<br /><br />Only Revelation can tell us the answer. As Steve said, Only God can accurately tell us about God. Intuitions should take a backseat to Divine Revelation.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57032661882013378312011-07-08T15:18:57.232-04:002011-07-08T15:18:57.232-04:00*****
typo correction:
We can call Jesus [Jesus&#...*****<br />typo correction:<br /><br />We can call Jesus [Jesus'] unique claim to be the Son of the "Father" to be a 6th sense of "Father".<br />*****<br /><br />Btw, I can sympathize with the experience and dilemma Unitarians like Dale, Anthony Buzzard, Greg Stafford, et al. have. Even with past Unitarians like Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, Samuel Clarke, John Milton etc. That's because I used to be a Unitarian myself.<br /><br /> Even now, I find that many of the arguments and criticisms that most Trinitarians make against Unitarianism don't fully understand and appreciate the basic Unitarian intuition, rationale and perspective. <br /><br />Having said that, I still think they are mistaken because they aren't taking into full account ALL of the Biblical data to form a coherent and consistent harmonization. While I personally wouldn't use the inflammatory language that Steve uses, I nevertheless find his arguments superb. They get to the heart of the issue. So I recommend his blogs on this subject (and all other subjects).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30912712529253664582011-07-08T14:57:28.709-04:002011-07-08T14:57:28.709-04:00Thank you David (Waltz) for the recommendation. On...Thank you David (Waltz) for the recommendation. One thing I definitely respect about you is that you're widely read. Unfortunately, I believe your internet hiatus has lead to your jumping to conclusions about the dialogue between Steve and Dale. Dale really was as engaged with Steve's arguments as Steve was his. So there was no obsession on either side. Anyway, my main reason for pointing out that Jesus' use of "Father" had a new meaning was to emphasize Steve's point that it's anachronistic to find passages in the OT that talk about God as Father and then to import into them the idea of "Fatherhood" that Jesus meant. As Steve pointed out, the Messiah is prophesied to be "everlasting Father/Father of eternity/possessor of eternity." Even in the Gospels Jesus called some people "son" (Matt. 9:2) and "daughter" (Matt. 9:22). David, as you know, Trinitarians believe that what can be spoken of concerning the being of God can be spoken of each person. God is "Father" in the sense of:<br />1. being the metaphysical cause of all things; <br />2. the maker of the nation of Israel (by right of Old Covenant redemption); <br />3. the creator of all rational spirits of men and angels (Heb. 12:9; Zech 12:1); <br />4. the creator of all human beings both Jew and Gentile by right of creation (Acts 17:28-29)<br />5. the creator of the adopted children of God (by right of New Covenant redemption). <br /><br />From the Trinitarian position, all 5 senses apply to each person of the Trinity including the Son and Spirit and not just God the Father. <br /><br />We can call Jesus unique claim to be the Son of the "Father" to be a 6th sense of "Father".<br /><br />Since the dialogue between Steve and Dale had to do with the relationship between the Father and the Son, it wouldn't be helpful to cull OT passages that refer to YHWH as Father (senses 1-5) to support the idea that only the Father (sense 6<br />) is YHWH. It's both anachronistic and equivocal. <br /><br />In any case, I wish you all the best in your search for the truth. I pray it leads to what I'm personally convinced of, the Reformed Faith. I'd like to say more but it's Friday.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42195562174044045852011-07-08T12:50:56.851-04:002011-07-08T12:50:56.851-04:00Hello AP,
You posted:
>>The OT understand...Hello AP, <br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />>>The OT understanding of God's "fatherhood" was with respect to God as maker of the nation of Israel and/or as Creator of the universe. When Christ came on the scene He used the term "Father" in a new and unheard of sense. The sense in which He is the "Son of the Father" in a different and unique way than that shared by creation or the constitution of the universe. This is the case regardless of whether one is a Trinitarian, Arian, etc. It's that new sense in which Christ was using the term "Father" that lead to some of the Jewish folk to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy.>><br /><br />Me: It is good to see that you acknowledge the fatherhood of Yahweh/God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God our Lord Jesus Christ (John 20:17) was part of Israel's understanding; though, as you correctly point out, they were not cognizant of the "new and unheard of sense" that Jesus revealed to them.<br /><br />For some interesting reflections on the fatherhood of Yahweh/God in the OT and Second Temple Judaism, see chapter 2 in the book: <i>The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament</i> (pp. 35-55):<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=kJmQortbOQgC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Promise%20of%20the%20Father&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22973124628659760842011-07-08T12:33:05.762-04:002011-07-08T12:33:05.762-04:00Good morning Steve,
Earlier today you wrote:
>...Good morning Steve,<br /><br />Earlier today you wrote:<br /><br />>>I see that David Waltz suffers from the same linguistic naïveté as Dale Tuggy:<br /><br />i) The question at issue is not whether God the Father is Yahweh. The question, rather, is whether that identification is exclusive to God the Father.>><br /><br />But back on 06/10/11 you wrote:<br /><br />>>ii) There's no reason to equate Yahweh with God the Father. That's highly anachronistic.>><br /><br />To state that there is "no reason to equate Yahweh with God the Father", and then later say that "the issue is not whether God the Father is Yahweh", doesn't seem to make much sense. <br /><br />The quote you provided from my <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/07/dr-dale-tuggy-vs-steve-hays.html" rel="nofollow">http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/07/dr-dale-tuggy-vs-steve-hays.html</a> thread is specifically addressing your first statement (and whether or not it is "highly anachronistic" to do so); I delve into the separate issue of "whether that identification is exclusive to God the Father", in the following thread:<br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-bible.html" rel="nofollow">http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-bible.html</a>David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91686897257896017082011-07-08T05:39:28.134-04:002011-07-08T05:39:28.134-04:00I agree with Steve. The OT understanding of God...I agree with Steve. The OT understanding of God's "fatherhood" was with respect to God as maker of the nation of Israel and/or as Creator of the universe. When Christ came on the scene He used the term "Father" in a new and unheard of sense. The sense in which He is the "Son of the Father" in a different and unique way than that shared by creation or the constitution of the universe. This is the case regardless of whether one is a Trinitarian, Arian, etc. It's that new sense in which Christ was using the term "Father" that lead to some of the Jewish folk to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com