First, a small summary of me; my name is Ishta and I’m currently a Journalism student at Coventry University. I’m originally from Uganda though, and right now I’m actually in Kampala for Christmas for the first time in 5 years. I got home this week, which is why I’ve been so silent on the blogosphere. As for my church background, I grew up Oneness Pentecostal but recently started going to a Trinitarian Pentecostal church for reasons that deserve a whole post on their own (and will probably get one). Although, I consider myself neither staunchly Oneness nor classically Trinitarian, and so I sympathise with Brian’s post about all the affiliations he could have claimed.
While I’m excited at the prospect of being the first female contributor to this blog, I’m nervous as to how well I’ll fit in since I’m not a seminarian. I’ll probably have to start reading more theology books, which is difficult for me because the only theological writing I’ve ever enjoyed is Kierkergaard and Wright (who, might I add, I discovered as a result of reading this blog). I read a lot of media analysis and cultural theory books (work) and philosophy (pleasure) though so I’d like to discuss whatever theological implications I might come across in my reading. As for my scriptural basis in making such a presumption* (for all you wonderful Bible scholars and seminarians)?
“But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.” -Job 32:8
(*My weak attempt at Biblical humor, a genre I feel I could easily perfect given the right audience!)
the archives near Emmaus 
Welcome! I was beginning to worry that people would think I invented you because you had not posted. We are glad to have you are part of this blog, especially since you have found it helpful in the past regarding things like pondering the Trinity and reading the work of good ol’ N.T. Wright.
Your contributions will bring a fresh perspective to this blog. Heck, I’d love to see a series on Kierkegaard. He has always been an interest of mine though I have not given him much attention.
Welcome Ishta!
Glad you finally had an opportunity to blog. Don’t worry about not being a “seminarian”, I’m not one either, at least not yet 😉 Just an old undergrad learning and blogging on things I enjoy. Looking forward to reading your posts.
Good insight Robert: blogging is about the learning process and writing about things you enjoy. We have a bit of a “subject” we cover, but anyone who has read much of this blog knows we put a lot under “biblical and theological blogging”!
Brian, we defiantly rule in that area 😉
Quick side-track; one Anthony Bir said to me on twitter “enjoyed your intro blog.. Definitely want to hear more about oneness to trinitarian philosophical shift.”
I thought, aha! Now we can get some interesting comments going on that intro post! (the post I’ve scheduled to write about my church change doesn’t address this topic)
Why I don’t consider myself clasically Oneness: I always cringe at the statement “Jesus is the Father!” because not only does it totally force Isaiah 9:6 to say something I don’t think it says, but it also completely ignores everything about the Son being in submission to the Father that we read in… um, all of the rest of Scripture.
Why I don't consider myself staunchly Trinitarian: It’s that eternal Sonship doctrine that I just can’t internalize. What about Hebrews 10:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28?
So, that’s me and my theology; insanely in love with Scripture to the point that I often feel no one man’s interpretation does it justice. After all, aren’t these terms “Oneness” and “Trinitarian” more definitive of how we perceive and understand God than they are of who He actually is? Who Jesus actually is to me, is my Lord and Saviour. Everything else is, as Wright once said, “rock and roll.”
Hi Ishta.
I wonder if perhaps you would be able to put your journalism skills to work and do a series on the public perception of Christianity and the Church. I believe also you would have strengths in being able to show preachers / pastors – potential and existing how to better communicate the Gospel and Biblical truths to a unbelieving world in a way that engages with them.
@Ishta: I guess I can get the ball rolling regarding your questions. I moved away from the Oneness doctrine for some of the same reason. Jesus is never called “the Father”, so I couldn’t figure out what it was that we were all defending. Likewise, the eternal nature of the Son was a hindrance for some time since it seems the Son is identified primarily with the incarnation.
On the other hand, Jesus is seen as “the Word” who was with God while being God (unified, yet distinct) according to the Fourth Gospel. He is the one “through whom” the Father created all things and “for whom” they were created according to Paul in Colossians. Even hints like in Rom. 1.1-3 where Paul clarifies that Jesus was the Son of David “according to the flesh” (juxtaposed to what?) seem to indicate his shared nature with God in a way that is not easily explained by adoptionist thinking.
So that is where I began. I began moving toward the Trinitarian doctrine because unlike the Oneness doctrine it willingly held the tension between Jesus being eternally one with the Father while being obviously distinct from the Father. The Spirit is seen as being the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ, unified with both, but never seen as being the Father or being Christ. Trinitarian dogma embraces the mystery of God which makes good sense to me!
Welcome, Ishta.
I look forward to reading your posts.
In the mean time, click over and read my Trinitarian studies here, and give some feedback, if you wish. http://pastoralmusings.com/doctrinal-studies/
Welcome, Ishta!
Good to see your introduction post. Lots of good discussion going on already. As Brian and Robert have already stated, just write on things you like in the areas of theology, Bible, and books. I myself have moved to posting humor here for the time being. 🙂
One thing regarding the eternal Son, I find that idea clearly expressed in the Bible. For instance, by the Son all things were created (Col. 1:16), by the Son God made the worlds (Heb. 1:13), the Son had glory with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:1, 5), the Son was existing in the form of God before His incarnation (Phil. 2:6), Jesus came down from heaven (John 16:28)—pretty overwhelming attestation to the Son’s pre-existence. In addition, the verbs that are associated with Jesus’ pre-existence are verbs of continuous existence. So while there may be some kind of “end” to some aspect of the Son, this does not negate the overwhelming testimony of the Son’s eternality before and after His incarnation.
So that was longer than I was expecting to type. Anyway, welcome and good to be partnered with you here. 🙂
Isnta,
I say you already have a solid foundation. Why thelogy books and become “ruined” like the rest of us here in blogosphere? 😀
@TC: True, it is better to stay away from those theology books! Too many nut jobs get published. 🙂
@Brian: well, she’s already into Wright – though some would consider this a misstep. 🙂
@TC: A misstep I support!
While it is important for
Christian churches to define the connection between God, Christ and
Spirit for spiritual purposes, for
me this is unimportant for pratical Christianity. However, for argument’s sake, the doctrine of Eternal Sonship is limited by how we view Christ. In my opinion, Christ is the fufillment of the Logos in human form. God, having no human form, clothed himself in flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. However to reject the trinity and completely go oneness does historically imply that other heretical doctrines will be formed that are completely out of line with mainstrean Christianity.
@Anthony: I’d have to disagree. I would say the Oneness version created a sense of a controllability as concerns God. It was pure monotheism, like something Aristotle could have made up if he sat around thinking hard enough about it. The Trinity brings awe.
Also, while I can see where referring to the pre-incarnate Son in terminology that refers to the Logos it appears to me, as JohnDave seems to indicate in the passages that he notes, that this is splitting hairs. The same one who is Logos is Son.
Ishta – welcome. I discovered Brian long before he launched Near Emmaus, and now I’m an avid reader. As a current Oneness Pentecostal, I aim to, one day, be the resident “heretic” of the Near Emmaus team. Until then, I just read and comment.
You should always ignore Anthony. He’s nothing but trouble. 🙂