I would agree with Alan and others- your smugness and attempts at humor might sometimes be worth smiling at; but ina discussion of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, they just don’t work.

As to your comments about the emotions and heart of God:

Scripture is literally full of anthropomorphisms (metaphorically ascribing to God human features); such as heart, eyes, shoulders, hands, fingers, etc.

As well, there are many anthropopathisms (metaphorically ascribing to God human emotions); such as anger, jealousy, repenting, being grieved, being angry, etc.

There are even others. The Psalmist speaks of hiding for safety “under His wings”. These are all designed to help our finite minds understand just a tiny bit about the Infinite.

Buick, NonSGfan, Wade, LeeBob, and Alan have all written excellent posts in this thread. I especially appreciated Buick’s comments about the value of Scripture, in sometimes stopping idle chatter and nonsensical drivel. Isn’t it supposed to do just that? It is good to see a number popping up with real reverence and respect for the Word of God.

There is absolutely no wiggle room when it comes to the Deity of our Savior. Either He is the I AM…or it is blasphemy to consider the converse.

If He is not the I AM, we all die in our sins (John 8:24).

Now I can stand with you on this one. This has nothing to do with personal taste or style and EVERYTHING to do with Biblical truth. My issues with you have been that you hold to style and taste as strongly as you hold to Biblical truth. This is conviction, the other that you have been pounding on so eloquently is preference.

Irishlad, “perhaps you are more acquainted with the wrath of God? Oh yeah, human emotion. How about the Love of God? Oops, my bad, human emotion,” Leebob said tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Captious is one thing. Carelessness is entirely another. Your remarks that I’d responded to (#14) were made shortly after the subject was introduced. Before us is the consideration of one of the bedrocks of the Christian faith. Your personality is entirely your business, friend. The defense of the Person of Christ is infinitely more important than your smugness in what you are. We need to remember that before God is described as a God who IS love, John tells us that He’s also a God of Light. And it’s that infinite holiness that should make us pause before we make the kind of ridiculous statements as you did up in post #14.

JM, #29 - you’re also correct in your thoughts about the energy expended to propel someone to the top of their craft, and then once they’ve “made it”, their cry is for privacy. Their take on it, of course, is that they always wanted their art to be well-known, but that their personal lives should remain just that. In a community as relatively small as sgm is we’ve come to meet or know Mr. Hemphill through his music and ministry. We’ve also come to know his family. This isn’t an invasion of his life or family, but a sadly necessary discussion about an entirely false doctrine that he believes. As well, we hope the music that we sing and enjoy is grounded in truth, don’t we? That makes this necessary as well as a valid discourse.

Finally, #30, that was excellent as well. You mentioned Kenosis, and it was great to read your thoughts. The “emptying” of the Lord Jesus didn’t divest Him of one iota of His deity, just His inherent and intrinsic reputation. Great analogy of water too…three Persons of the Godhead, each equal in personality and essence, yet unique in Person and work.

I can’t help but believe that the introduction of a foundational plank of faith that is under attack is a healthy thing, and that thought has been brilliantly defended by many of you folks. Maybe this thread will swing over to Doug’s latest post now, and it will be a fascinating continuation.

However, when this public identity begins to gain the individual some degree of unwanted or undesired attention, they claim to be a “private person,” who’s life should not be opened to a high level of scrutiny and examination. Our courts, in various judgements and decisions, have seen both sides of this argument and have rendered verdicts favoring both points of view. Tom Cruise, Madonna and Brad Pitt have invested countless hours and dollars to establish a high profile, public image. However, when their religious beliefs, personal relationships or children’s welfare is called into question, they attempt to retreat to the warm embrace of being a private individual.

It does not seem reasonable to assume that one should be able to write/publish/sell a book based on one’s well established public identity without understanding that the same public identity will be held accountable for the information detailed in the book. I guess that’s my long-winded way of suggesting that while Mr. Hemphill’s relationship with God is private, his documented positions relating to God are quite public and, as such, are open to public scrutiny and discourse.

In the excerpt from Joel’s book, linked in post #13, Hemphill quotes the book of Hebrews to support his position. That same epistle begins, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, AND THROUGH WHOM HE MADE THE UNIVERSE.” (Emphasis mine.)

It would appear that if God’s Son is not eternal, no one told the writer of Hebrews about it. God’s Son was there before anything was created and He was instrumental in God’s creating.

And that is just from the prologue to the epistle to the Hebrews…the very epistle JH quotes to try to support his false doctrine. The prologue to John’s Gospel is even more specific and more undeniable in stating the the Word was with God and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

The deity of Jesus is unavoidable in Scripture. The only way of denying it is to deny the authority of the Bible.

NOW - as an adjunct to this post:
I know that there are those (including our esteemed cyber-host) who lament that when people quote Scripture, it is a thread-stopper because it tends to stifle discussion and dissent. Seems to me that Scripture SHOULD stifle discussion and dissent. Once we are reminded of what the Bible says, that ought to bring a discussion to a conclusion. I always get a little wormy when someone says, “I know what the Bible says, however…” There should be no “however” once we know what the Bible says. As the old-time preacher is reputed to have put it, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

So, frankly, I find it encouraging that when someone quotes God’s Word, the discussion tapers off. That let’s me know we are a cyber-community that respects The Word.