Oneness Pentecostalism

Here is a great website that I highly recommend hosted by Jason Dulle and William Arnold. Both men are Oneness Pentecostal scholars and provide a variety of resources and studies. If you are Oneness Pentecostal and want to dig deeper or are a Trinitarian wanting to know more this is a great place to start online. Click here to visit Oneness Pentecostal.com. 

Biblical Archaeology Series by Jason Dulle (Theosophical Ruminations)

Jehoichan-ration's tablet

Friend and scholar Jason Dulle is doing an excellent series on Biblical Archaeology at his blog Theosophical Ruminations. Dulle (pronounced like "Julie") writes, "Over the next few weeks I will be posting and discussing archeological discoveries of Biblical significance." He also lists several interesting facts about the value of Biblical Archaeology. If you've been wanting to brush up on this topic I suggest you give his blog a visit. Click here to peruse the series at his blog.

Value of Biblical Archaeology
Why should Christians be concerned about archeology?

• Archaeology brings the Biblical stories to life in tangible way. It transfers them from the pages of a book—from stories—to the real world of experience by presenting us with empirical evidence that confirms the reliability and accuracy of the Bible’s historical claims.
• Archaeology cannot prove everything in the Bible given how little is preserved, but what we have discovered supports the Bible’s general reliability against the skeptics who claim it is myth.Liberals tend to think the Bible is guilty until proven innocent. If there is no extra-biblical confirmation of the Biblical record, they presume the Bible is wrong. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given the corroborating evidence archeologists have uncovered thus far, the Bible should be given the benefit of the doubt for historical claims that cannot be tested, or for which we do not presently possess any extra-biblical evidence for.
• Archaeology helps adjudicate between religions by supplying good reasons to take the religious claims of one religion seriously over that of another. If the historical claims of religion Q has no corroborating support from archeology whereas the historical claims of religion R do, then that is one good reason to prefer religion Rover Q as the true religion. (Click here to read full post.)

I hope you enjoy the upcoming posts as much as I’ve enjoyed researching them.

Reifying “Natures” = Two Persons by Jason Dulle

Here is an excellent article from Jason Dulle, M.A. from Theosophical Ruminations
_________________

Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) have always struggled to explain the duality of activity and consciousness we see portrayed in Scripture between the Father and Son.  The Father is doing one thing, while the Son is doing another; the Father knows all things, while the Son knows only what the Father reveals to Him; the Father is prayed to, while the Son prays.  How can this distinction of activity and consciousness be explained other than in terms of multiple persons?  Admittedly, that would be the most obvious and natural explanation.  And yet, because we are persuaded that the Biblical affirmation of monotheism extends both to God’s essence and God’sperson, OPs have sought an alternative explanation that is Biblically and philosophically sound.

The standard way of explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures.  The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y.  On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature.  What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.”  What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.”  Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities.  On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another.  The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.

The problem with the traditional OP explanation is two-fold.  First, while OPs have tried to avoid the conclusion that God is “two persons,” they have ultimately turned Jesus into two persons.  His human nature is understood as a separate person from the Father; a human person.  In Jesus, then, there are two persons: one who is divine, and one who is human.  But this is de facto Nestorianism.  On this view, God did not truly become man, but merely came to dwell within a human person who is ontologically distinct from the divine person.

Secondly, natures are impersonal, and thus cannot be the source of personal activities such as thought and prayer.  A nature just refers to a set of essential capacities demarcating what kind of thing someone or something is.  Natures cannot think or act.  Natures do not pray or speak; only persons are capable of doing these things, utilizing the capacities of their nature to do so.  In attributing some activities to Jesus’ human nature, and others to the divine nature, we have reified natures so as to give them personhood.  For OPs, natures have all the attributes and carry out all of the functions of persons, but we dare not call them “persons.”  Given the fact that natures are impersonal by definition, the distinction of activity and consciousness between the Father and Son cannot be explained by an appeal to natures.  Only persons are capable of doing what we see the Father and Son doing in Scripture.  Does this commit us to the Trinitarian view, then?

No.  We can make sense of the distinction of activity and consciousness between the Father and Son if we understand the one divine person to be conscious of Himself in two distinct ways: as God in His cosmic mode of existence, and as man in His human mode of existence.  On this construal, the divine and human natures are not the locus of activity, but rather the cause of activity.  In His cosmic mode of existence, the one divine person functions according to His divine nature, causing/allowing Him to be conscious of Himself and act in a divine manner.  But in His incarnate mode of existence, the one divine person functions according to His human nature, causing/allowing Him to be conscious of Himself and act in a human manner.  In each case it is the person, not the nature, who acts.  The distinction of natures simply allows the one divine person to be conscious of Himself, and act in two distinct modes simultaneously.

Click here to go to the article @ Theosophical Ruminations

Is God A Person?

I have encountered a number of Oneness Pentecostals who not only object to the Trinitarian concept of God as “three persons,” but object to calling God a “person” at all.  In what follows, I provide typical objections offered against calling God a person, followed by a response.

Objection: The Bible never uses the term “person” of God
Response: The question is not whether the Bible uses the term per se, but whether the nature of God as described in Scripture can rightly be described as personable, given the definition of person: a conscious, rational, thinking, subject of various experiences (a mind).

Furthermore, the Bible does not speak of humans as “persons” either, and yet no one disputes the legitimacy of applying such a term to human beings.  The mere fact that such terminology is not used of God no more means that God is not accurately described as being a person than the absence of such terminology for humans means we are not accurately described as persons.  If we do not hesitate to call ourselves persons, neither should we hesitate to call God a person.

Objection: The Bible calls God a Spirit, not a person
Response: The two terms are not incompatible with one another.  Humans are spirits as well as persons.  “Spirit” describes the kind of substance our person is; i.e. our person is a spirit, or spiritual in nature.  The same is true of God.  He is a person who is spiritual in nature.

If God is not a person, what is He?  Answering that He is a spirit will not do, because spirits come in two logically possible forms: personal, impersonal.  Clearly God is not impersonal, so He must be a personable spirit.  If God is personable, why not call Him a person?  What other than “person” properly and accurately describes the attribute of being personable?

Objection: God cannot be a person because God does not have a body

Response: Having a body is not necessary to personhood.  A person is essentially incorporeal in nature.  What makes something a person is their possession of mind, the very thing God is/has.  Having a body may be commonplace to persons, but it is notnecessary.  Put another way, persons might have bodies, but persons are not identical to their bodies.  That this is true should be obvious from the doctrine of the intermediate state.  When we die our person goes on to be with the Lord in heaven, but our body stays in the ground.  Such a state of existence is possible only because having a body is not an essential property of persons.  And if it is not an essential property of persons, then God’s lack of a body does not count as evidence against His personhood.

“Persons” applies to more than just human beings.  Any being who is a conscious, rational, thinking, subject of various experiences is a person.  Both angels and God fit this description, and thus they are persons: God is a divine person; angels are angelic persons; and humans are human persons.  Humans are embodied persons, while God and angels are disembodied persons (apart from Christ, at least).

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-god-a-person/

By Jason Dulle, M.A. Exegetical Theology

Is church-based ministerial training just as good as seminary-based training? by Jason Dulle

Here is a great article by Jason Dulle that I thought was worth passing on.


Click here to read from Theosophical Ruminations

I’ve heard it more times than I can count: “Church-based ministerial training is just as good as Bible college/seminary-based ministerial training.” Personally, I think this statement is not well thought out. The two training methods cannot be equal because they focus on different aspects of ministry. In some matters, ministerial training within a local church from a pastor is superior to the training one can receive in seminary. In other matters, the training one gets in seminary is superior to the training they could obtain from their pastor in the local church. Seminary-based ministerial training excels at preparing one’s mind for ministry, while church-based ministerial-training excels at preparing one for some of the more practical aspects of ministry (such as performing ceremonies, administering the Lord’s supper, counseling, praying for the sick, etc.) Both are needed, and thus whenever possible, both should be sought.

If someone wants to prepare themselves theologically for the ministry, church-based training is no substitute for seminary, and for good reason. Seminaries exist for the primary purpose of preparing ministers with the theological knowledge needed to more effectively minister the Word of God to the people of God. The amount of time spent learning theology in a seminary can never be achieved in a local church (at least not within the same timeframe, if not the scope of learning itself) for two reasons. First, most pastors are not equipped with a seminary-level education, and thus could not provide it.

Second, most pastors do not have the time to dedicate 15-20 hours a week teaching someone theology. They have many other responsibilities. Michael Patton recently compared the difference between a church and seminary to the difference between a hospital and medical school. He asked, “Could local hospitals provide a better place for training than medical school? Not really. Why? Because that is not their focus. They are there to practice medicine. There is a reason why a different type of venue needs to be set up for both—effectiveness in all things pertaining to the training as well as a concerted effort with a very particular purpose. The local church and hospitals serve for residencies, not the primary training venue.”[1] Well put. In the same way a doctor needs to prepare himself academically in medical school because that is a more suitable environment, likewise a minister should prepare himself academically in a seminary since that is a more suitable environment for learning what needs to be learned to effectively minister to hurting souls in the church.

Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin? by Jason Dulle

Technorati Tags: Jason Dulle

“Was it possible for Jesus to sin? Some might contend that such a question is pointless to ask in light of the historical fact that Jesus did not sin (John 8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Admittedly, this is not the most pressing of questions we need to consider, but nevertheless, it has value for our understanding of the person of Christ--specifically to what extent He identified with us in our humanity, and the identity of His person.

Seeing that Scripture only affirms the historical fact of Christ's sinlessness, determining whether it was theoretically possible for Him to have sinned cannot be settled by an appeal to Scripture. It must be settled via larger theological categories, considerations, and concerns.”

Click here to read full article from Institute for Biblical Studies.

Jason Dulle, MA Exegetical Theology. Blog: Theosophical Ruminations

IBS Virtual Classroom by William Arnold and Jason Dulle

“Welcome to the IBS (Institute for Biblical Studies) Virtual Classroom! The primary goal of this ministry is to provide affordable or even free Bible courses for those who would like to attend Bible college, but who are, for whatever reason, unable. This could also be used as a review for those who have been to Bible college. What we are offering at present is a New Testament Survey course in RealAudio® and mp3 format, along with quizzes, links to related articles for further reading, a course syllabus, and instructions for taking the course online. What we do not offer is college credit or any type of certificate for completing the courses; they are provided for your enrichment only.

We have tried to make taking these courses as simple as possible. All you have to do is buy the book(s) and listen to the classes online. Most of the books are available from Amazon or CBD. Or you may simply listen to any of the sessions which interest you. Either way there is no charge whatsoever for the online courses. You will need to download RealPlayer (version 8 or above) to play the RealAudio® files. The mp3 format should play in just about any media player. I hope that these classes are a blessing to you!”

William Arnold III

Webmaster, IBS

www.onenesspentecostal.com

Online Courses

New Testament Survey