 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Jesus Limited to ONE PLACE ? - Serious Theological Question |
MI6 |
Jack Hayford, former senior pastor of The Church On The Way in Van Nuys, California and was the fourth President of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, was teaching a series on the Holy Spirit at Gateway Church and stated that -
"When Jesus became man and took on flesh, he forever limited himself to be in one place at a time, and this is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit - so that the Holy Spirit could be in every believer and everywhere all at the same time."
A challenging statement to Orthodox Theology and mainstream Christianity.
So what are your thoughts on Jack Hayford's statement? |
Friendly Face
Posts: 140
5/16/19 12:39 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Jesus Limited to ONE PLACE ? - Serious Theological Question |
Resident Skeptic |
| MI6 wrote: | Jack Hayford, former senior pastor of The Church On The Way in Van Nuys, California and was the fourth President of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, was teaching a series on the Holy Spirit at Gateway Church and stated that -
"When Jesus became man and took on flesh, he forever limited himself to be in one place at a time, and this is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit - so that the Holy Spirit could be in every believer and everywhere all at the same time."
A challenging statement to Orthodox Theology and mainstream Christianity.
So what are your thoughts on Jack Hayford's statement? |
It just goes to show just how much diversity of opinion there is in the trinitarian camp. Certainly the physical body of Christ is limited, but his existence goes beyond the physical. There is only one triune God according to trinitarian theology. The attributes of God include omni-presence. He is everywhere at once. When we start saying that those attributes only apply to two of God's subsistences, then we've gone from trinitarianism into tritheism. Furthermore, Paul made it clear that God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts. God in Christ, Christ in us, thus God in us.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/16/19 12:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Jesus Limited to ONE PLACE ? - Serious Theological Question |
Tom Sterbens |
| MI6 wrote: | Jack Hayford, former senior pastor of The Church On The Way in Van Nuys, California and was the fourth President of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, was teaching a series on the Holy Spirit at Gateway Church and stated that -
"When Jesus became man and took on flesh, he forever limited himself to be in one place at a time, and this is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit - so that the Holy Spirit could be in every believer and everywhere all at the same time."
A challenging statement to Orthodox Theology and mainstream Christianity.
So what are your thoughts on Jack Hayford's statement? |
He was speaking of His incarnation and the limitations of the flesh. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4507
5/16/19 5:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I have great respect for Jack H. I am sure there is more to this. In all my 'Bible Teachers' that I respect, he rates toward the top!
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
5/16/19 8:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tom Sterbens |
| Cojak wrote: | | I have great respect for Jack H. I am sure there is more to this. In all my 'Bible Teachers' that I respect, he rates toward the top! |
Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.
I know that for a fact. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4507
5/16/19 9:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Cojak wrote: | | I have great respect for Jack H. I am sure there is more to this. In all my 'Bible Teachers' that I respect, he rates toward the top! |
Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.
I know that for a fact. |
But the statement makes no sense. Was there ever a time that the physical body of Jesus was NOT confined to one place? He clearly says it was this limitation of being in one place at a time that caused him to send the Holy Spirit. Again, it is this line of reasoning that trinitarians should reconsider. The fact that God added humanity to his deity does not mean one of his subsistences does not retain an important attribute of being God. If he lost omnipresence, then he is not all-powerful (omnipotent).
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/17/19 4:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tom Sterbens |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Cojak wrote: | | I have great respect for Jack H. I am sure there is more to this. In all my 'Bible Teachers' that I respect, he rates toward the top! |
Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.
I know that for a fact. |
But the statement makes no sense. Was there ever a time that the physical body of Jesus was NOT confined to one place? He clearly says it was this limitation of being in one place at a time that caused him to send the Holy Spirit. Again, it is this line of reasoning that trinitarians should reconsider. The fact that God added humanity to his deity does not mean one of his subsistences does not retain an important attribute of being God. If he lost omnipresence, then he is not all-powerful (omnipotent). |
First - as I *recall* the conversation/dialog/setting was that he was discussing the practical implications of John 14:12.
Second - I do not know that we will ever be able to fully comprehend/explain the implications of kenosis or perichoresis - and certainly not the intersection of the two. But personally, as I have written here before, I am good with nature and existence of God being beyond my comprehension.  As certainly as I believe we serve a God who exists beyond time, space and matter...I also belive I serve a God beyond the scope of human intellect to reduce Him to definable terms (cf. Jeremaih 2:13).
Last - I am aware you enjoy the Oneness vs Trinitarian debate - and that is on a shortlist of things I don't bother debating any longer. The previous sentence was not a shot at you or a pejorative remark in any way - just simply an FYI prior to you getting it all cranked up. Seriously, no malice intended whatsoever.
Thanks. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4507
5/17/19 12:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Cojak wrote: | | I have great respect for Jack H. I am sure there is more to this. In all my 'Bible Teachers' that I respect, he rates toward the top! |
Cojak - what I wrote above is really all there is to it.
I know that for a fact. |
But the statement makes no sense. Was there ever a time that the physical body of Jesus was NOT confined to one place? He clearly says it was this limitation of being in one place at a time that caused him to send the Holy Spirit. Again, it is this line of reasoning that trinitarians should reconsider. The fact that God added humanity to his deity does not mean one of his subsistences does not retain an important attribute of being God. If he lost omnipresence, then he is not all-powerful (omnipotent). |
First - as I *recall* the conversation/dialog/setting was that he was discussing the practical implications of John 14:12.
Second - I do not know that we will ever be able to fully comprehend/explain the implications of kenosis or perichoresis - and certainly not the intersection of the two. But personally, as I have written here before, I am good with nature and existence of God being beyond my comprehension. As certainly as I believe we serve a God who exists beyond time, space and matter...I also belive I serve a God beyond the scope of human intellect to reduce Him to definable terms (cf. Jeremaih 2:13).
Last - I am aware you enjoy the Oneness vs Trinitarian debate - and that is on a shortlist of things I don't bother debating any longer. The previous sentence was not a shot at you or a pejorative remark in any way - just simply an FYI prior to you getting it all cranked up. Seriously, no malice intended whatsoever.
Thanks. |
My brother I did not take offense, but I want to be clear that I am speaking solely from a trinitarian perspective in this discussion. I use the term "subsistences" to describe the persons of the trinity, borrowing that term from Dr. James White.
Indeed you are correct that this is a complicated issue.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/17/19 1:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Tom Sterbens |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: |
My brother I did not take offense, but I want to be clear that I am speaking solely from a trinitarian perspective in this discussion. I use the term "subsistences" to describe the persons of the trinity, borrowing that term from Dr. James White.
Indeed you are correct that this is a complicated issue. |
 |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4507
5/17/19 1:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Its the mystery of the Godhead ... |
Mat |
Its the mystery of the Godhead, in contrast to the limitation of finite man both in thought and language when it comes to defining an infinite God. Yes, God has revealed Himself in three persons - Father - Son - Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son do not have their own separate Spirits from the Holy Spirit. The resurrected body of Jesus (which is now in heaven) does not serve as a limited container for the Father and the Spirit. Jesus endured the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrect at the will of the Father to whom He prayed.
Thank the Good Lord being forgive of our sins and saved from eternal hell can be found in the Name of Jesus. If our salvation depended on theological definitions, I fear we would all be lose and undone.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1979
5/17/19 3:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Its the mystery of the Godhead ... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Mat wrote: | Its the mystery of the Godhead, in contrast to the limitation of finite man both in thought and language when it comes to defining an infinite God. Yes, God has revealed Himself in three persons - Father - Son - Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son do not have their own separate Spirits from the Holy Spirit. The resurrected body of Jesus (which is now in heaven) does not serve as a limited container for the Father and the Spirit. Jesus endured the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrect at the will of the Father to whom He prayed.
Thank the Good Lord being forgive of our sins and saved from eternal hell can be found in the Name of Jesus. If our salvation depended on theological definitions, I fear we would all be lose and undone.
Mat |
Yet, some of the more dogmatic say that one's eternal salvation hangs on at least mentally assenting to certain creedal wording, even if there are several different understandings of words themselves. I truly believe that the majority who supported the Nicaean Creed produced at that Council were taking a stand AGAINST Arianism and FOR the deity of Christ more than they were necessarily giving their stamp of approval the actual wording of the creed itself.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/17/19 3:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
| Sadly, the “oneness†heresy plagues the modern Church just as Gnosticism plagued the early Church. This stuff is not rocket science. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
5/17/19 4:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Da Sheik wrote: | | Sadly, the “oneness†heresy plagues the modern Church just as Gnosticism plagued the early Church. This stuff is not rocket science. |
Sorry, but the oneness explanation (actually there is more than one version of it) falls within the tolerance levels of trinitarianism, based on the description of the trinity offered by prominent theologians.
I dare say many trinitarians hold beliefs they swear to be "orthodox", but are not. For example, I see many trinitarians describing the persons of the trinity as "three beings". Would you consider that to be orthodox?
One of my SAGU professors, an AG pastor, says that the majority of trinitarians are tritheists and don't realize it, while many others are modalists. In the oneness ranks, definite modalist and non-modalist camps are emerging, but none hold to successive modalism.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/17/19 5:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I commented on this just because a man I respect highly, Jack Hayford, was mentioned. When I have heard his teaching, it was common sense with a depth that I (being uneducated) could grasp. By the way I had no idea the church he pastored, called "The Church On the Way." was called that because the street was "The Way or On the Way" i forgot which. I had always thought it was a 'neat' name indicating they were 'On the Way to Heaven.' We drove by on a week day and did not attend service.
I am smart enough to know that there is no way I can think like God, or understand his BEING. I can only go by my mind and heart's feeling, That my soul is safe. Destined for Heaven, and when I reach that Promised Land I will KNOW what my educated friends and loved ones have been trying to explain.
But until then My Heart will go On Singing! I'm Saved and I know that I am!
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
5/17/19 10:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I do enjoy reading opinions, and reasons for the same. This site would be less interesting if we were all 'YES' people. I do appreciate reading opposing comments that are respectful, we are brothers and sisters methinks.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
5/17/19 10:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Cojak and Skeptic |
Mat |
Cojak,
Jack Hayford called it "Church of the Way" because at the time it was located (may still be) on "Sherman Way." I think (from memory) he was teaching at L.I.F.E. Bible College and was asked to pastor a small church in the San Fernando Valley area called something like First Church of the Foursquare Gospel (something like that with the denominational name). I think he started out with less than 100 in a traditional Pentecostal style church.
Skeptic,
I'll willing to call "Oneness" folks Christians, but do they call me Christian? There's the rub, well, and not being able to receive the "seal" of your salvation until after water baptism in "the Name of Jesus" (only). Well, there could be a couple of other issues, but I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit before I was baptized in water. When I was baptized in water, it was in "the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit." Now the minister did say, in accordance to the commands of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ I baptize you my brother ..." So maybe that counts.
Your Brother in Christ,
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1979
5/18/19 6:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Cojak and Skeptic |
Resident Skeptic |
| Mat wrote: | Cojak,
Jack Hayford called it "Church of the Way" because at the time it was located (may still be) on "Sherman Way." I think (from memory) he was teaching at L.I.F.E. Bible College and was asked to pastor a small church in the San Fernando Valley area called something like First Church of the Foursquare Gospel (something like that with the denominational name). I think he started out with less than 100 in a traditional Pentecostal style church.
Skeptic,
I'll willing to call "Oneness" folks Christians, but do they call me Christian? There's the rub, well, and not being able to receive the "seal" of your salvation until after water baptism in "the Name of Jesus" (only). Well, there could be a couple of other issues, but I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit before I was baptized in water. When I was baptized in water, it was in "the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit." Now the minister did say, in accordance to the commands of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ I baptize you my brother ..." So maybe that counts.
Your Brother in Christ,
Mat |
Hey, you'll just have to wait until my book comes out!! haha Seriously, I understand what you are saying. The exclusivity of that movement has always bothered me as well, though they have gradually improved over the years. As for baptism, I do not believe that the contexts of Matthew 28:19 or Acts 2:38 were intended to teach an invocation for baptism. Both camps miss the point there , in my opinion.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/18/19 7:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| I dare say... |
Aaron Scott |
I dare say that if we wrote down multiple "definitions" of the trinity, with all but one being slightly incorrect, we'd have no more than 30-40% of Church of God members choose the correct one.
For that matter, we'd likely have fewer that 75% of Church of God ministers get it right.
There is NO WAY this should be considered doctrine. We all believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost--trinitarian and Oneness believer alike. It is trying to codify that belief--trying to figure out just how they call fit together--that is the problem.
For myself, I have determined that ONLY those things that are BOMBPROOF in scripture can really, truly be considered DOCTRINE. That being said, I do indeed hold to positions that are not bombproof in scripture, but are based on some evidence in scripture.
Sanctification as a second work of grace? No, it's not bombproof, but I do believe it.
Initial evidence? It's not bombproof in scripture, but it certainly has the preponderance of the evidence.
Jesus is the Son of God? BOMBPROOF.
Jesus died on the cross and rose again. BOMBPROOF.
You must be born again? BOMBPROOF.
The Trinity? NOT bombproof, even if we all do hold to the notion of "threeness" in the Godhead (whether three persons, three beings, three manifestations, etc.). We hold this because we MUST, since there seems to be no way around this "threeness." But beyond that it gets tricky.
I can find plenty of scriptures that indicate that Jesus and the Father are one (e.g., "was with God and the Word was God"). But I can also find plenty of verses where it appears that God is a solitary "person."
I can say "these three are one," then find a verse where Jesus asks that the disciples be made one even as He and the Father are One. That leaves a lot of wiggle room.[/u] |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
5/18/19 1:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I dare say... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I dare say that if we wrote down multiple "definitions" of the trinity, with all but one being slightly incorrect, we'd have no more than 30-40% of Church of God members choose the correct one.
For that matter, we'd likely have fewer that 75% of Church of God ministers get it right.
There is NO WAY this should be considered doctrine. We all believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost--trinitarian and Oneness believer alike. It is trying to codify that belief--trying to figure out just how they call fit together--that is the problem.
For myself, I have determined that ONLY those things that are BOMBPROOF in scripture can really, truly be considered DOCTRINE. That being said, I do indeed hold to positions that are not bombproof in scripture, but are based on some evidence in scripture.
Sanctification as a second work of grace? No, it's not bombproof, but I do believe it.
Initial evidence? It's not bombproof in scripture, but it certainly has the preponderance of the evidence.
Jesus is the Son of God? BOMBPROOF.
Jesus died on the cross and rose again. BOMBPROOF.
You must be born again? BOMBPROOF.
The Trinity? NOT bombproof, even if we all do hold to the notion of "threeness" in the Godhead (whether three persons, three beings, three manifestations, etc.). We hold this because we MUST, since there seems to be no way around this "threeness." But beyond that it gets tricky.
I can find plenty of scriptures that indicate that Jesus and the Father are one (e.g., "was with God and the Word was God"). But I can also find plenty of verses where it appears that God is a solitary "person."
I can say "these three are one," then find a verse where Jesus asks that the disciples be made one even as He and the Father are One. That leaves a lot of wiggle room.[/u] |
I've always appreciated your honesty on this topic.
Incidentally, a certain pastor that I've never met in person is pleading with me to have a face to face meeting with Dr. David K. Bernard, General Superintendent of the UPCI. I have not attended a UPC church since late 2016. But the pastor who is pushing this was impressed enough with some of my attempts to bridge the gap between trinity and oneness that he feels I should share my views with Bernard. Interesting turn of events.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/18/19 2:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
