Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1793Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Response to Rob Bowman on 1 Cor. 8:6

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Navas
    Oct 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      For Rob Bowman:
       
      You wrote:
       
      Furthermore, Patrick has yet to put his objections to Trinitarianism into a context of what he personally believes. All I really know for sure about his theology is that he does not believe in the Trinity, and that he holds that Jesus is the "Son of God" and therefore cannot
      be God. I don't know much at all about what Patrick positively believes. I can't very well refute a position that has not been presented.
       
      Rob, I have already given you a free electronic copy of my book that you said you were going to review. You also said that you have already read the intro and first chapter published on my website. My book (and everything I have written in these exchanges thus far) clearly articulates my positive belief about God and Christ. But for the record (again), I believe, with Paul that the one God is "the Father." Since Paul (Jesus, and the ancient prophets) did not affirm belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, neither do I. I believe what Paul said, and what Jesus said (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6) and simply do not go beyond the simple and straightforward concepts these texts communicate.
       
      I also believe that Jesus is "the Messiah (the annointed), the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16) in the sense that this expression communicates at face value. That is, I believe there is a living God (the Father) and that Jesus is the Son of that living God. The true God, in my view, is "the Father of" my "Lord Jesus Christ" not the "Trinity."
       
      Mostly, I know what Patrick is *against*; I am unclear as
      to what he is *for*. Surely it is reasonable for me to ask for such larger context.
       
      Surely, you have at least read the intro and first chapter of my book (and all of my comments and observations in these dialogues so far) which make crystal clear what I am "for."
      Patrick
       




      "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
      Paul,

      You wrote:

      ************ ***
      I have been following this for a bit. One thing missing is any actual
      refutation by you. Yes you say what you believe, yet you do not give
      any substance to your beliefs.

      You do not answer Patrick's direct questions based on scripture and
      history. You appear to divert attention to Patrick's methods, beliefs
      or association, rather than give substantive answers to the
      scriptural points. It is kind of like you can't/won't commit yourself
      to a direct answer and in this way dodge the real issues.

      I am disappointed as this is not the way you have answered others in
      the past. Those reading the posts may well draw the conclusion that
      you cannot answer. I am sure that is not the impression you wish to
      give. Remember Patrick and I do not see eye to eye on all issues, so
      I am not being excessively partisan here.
      ************ ****

      Perhaps you have not been following this exchange for long enough.
      Most of what Patrick said in his most recent post simply repeats
      arguments or objections he raised earlier. I have answered Patrick in
      detail, point for point, in earlier posts in this exchange.

      Furthermore, Patrick has yet to put his objections to Trinitarianism
      into a context of what he personally believes. All I really know for
      sure about his theology is that he does not believe in the Trinity,
      and that he holds that Jesus is the "Son of God" and therefore cannot
      be God. I don't know much at all about what Patrick positively
      believes. I can't very well refute a position that has not been
      presented. Mostly, I know what Patrick is *against*; I am unclear as
      to what he is *for*. Surely it is reasonable for me to ask for such
      larger context.

      The response I did give to his post focused on the major criticisms
      he presented in his previous post. His main arguments in rebuttal to
      me are in fact addressed in my response.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman


    • Show all 23 messages in this topic