Ronny Milliner Plainly Admits to Being a Liar
by Tim Haile
|
Ronny Milliner Plainly Admits to Being a Liar by Tim Haile |
July 1, 2000
In the May 2000 issue of The Seeker, Ronny Milliner wrote an article entitled: "Brother Haile Plainly Admits to Believing Apollinarianism." This upset me, to say the least. I have never affirmed belief in Apollinarianism! In fact, to quite the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that we don't even know exactly what Apollinarius believed, for his enemies destroyed his writings! How in the world can one be either for or against someone when he doesn't know with certainty, what he believed? Milliner's charge is nothing less than a blatant and deliberate lie. He has absolutely no basis, and no excuse for this slanderous charge. It is a flagrant misrepresentation of my convictions. Ronny, the name of God is blasphemed among men as a result of your kind of egregious behavior (Rom. 2:24). Have you forgotten that God is watching you? (Heb. 4:13).
What I Have Said About Apollinarianism:
Dear reader, you are about to find out just how dishonest Ronny Milliner really is. The following paragraphs contain my past comments regarding Apollinarianism. Honest people have experienced absolutely no difficulty in understanding what I have said about this matter.
In my article entitled: "Review of Ronny Milliner's Article on 'Neo-Apollinarianism,'" under the subtitle "A Note Concerning Apollinarius," I wrote the following:
"Thankfully, my eternal security hinges upon my accepting and obeying the conditions of our Lord's grace. What "Apollinarius" either believed or did not believe is entirely irrelevant to my salvation. I have determined to "hold forth the word of life" as my all-sufficient standard of faith and practice (Phil. 2:16; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). If Ronny Milliner wants to spend his time reading and defending the godless practices of 4th century apostates who misrepresented, then burned their opponent's writings, then he may do such. I have more interest in what the Bible says than I do in what Apollinarius' enemies accused him of teaching."
"Ronny places a great deal of confidence in quotations by Roy Lanier, Sr. and Philip Schaff regarding Apollinarius' beliefs, yet their conclusions are skewed by misinformation. All we know about Apollinarius is what his enemies wanted us to know! Reasonable people will not see this as a sound basis for accusation. As I said before, I do not know, with certainty, what Apollinarius believed regarding the person of Christ, and more importantly, neither does Ronny Milliner!"
Did my remarks sound like I plainly admitted to believing in Apollinarianism? Ronny, what is wrong with you!
This next quotation is from my April 14, 2000 article entitled: "I Have Told You Plainly." We already know what conclusion Ronny Milliner reached from my writings, but what do honest people think? Under the subtitle, "I Have 'Plainly' Told Ronny My Position on Apollinarius," I wrote the following:
"What an odd demand! As I have repeatedly pointed out and plainly told Ronny in my last article on Apollinarianism, no one knows for sure what Apollinarius really believed. This includes Ronny Milliner. Nevertheless he insists that I tell people whether or not I agree with Apollinarius! Dear reader, do you understand Milliner's logic? This is the craziest demand any gospel preacher has ever made of me. Not only do we not know exactly what Apollinarius really believed and taught; what difference does it make anyway! I thought the Christian's duty was to "speak as the oracles of God" and "abide in the doctrine of Christ" (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9). What difference does it make what some fourth century theologian believed? All that matters is what the Bible teaches and whether or not we accept that teaching."
You see, what I plainly stated was that "we don't know exactly what Apollinarius really believed and taught..." I never came close to admitting "belief in Apollinarianism!"
Milliner's intentional deception has gone far beyond his little game of constructing a straw heretic, then associating his opponents with that heretic. The calloused mentality that previously allowed him to misrepresent his opponents now allows him to brazenly lie about them! It is as though his conscience has been "seared with a hot iron" (1 Tim. 4:2).
Milliner has done just as I said in one of my earlier articles on this subject. He uses the "Apollinarius" character as a fill-in-the-blank, construct-your-own-heretic, design mold. He then decides what views he wishes to ascribe to his custom made "heretic," then he makes his opponents guilty by association. The word "honorable" certainly doesn't come to my mind in connection with Ronny Milliner's.
Concerning My Remarks About Milliner's Representation of Me:
Ronny obviously took great comfort in my stating that he had "fairly represented me" in one particular matter. He felt vindicated by my remark, and even called upon others to apologize to him for charging him with misrepresenting me. Ronny, don't be surprised if those apologies are not forthcoming. When I acknowledged that you had fairly represented me, I was not making a carte blanche, unconditional statement! Your fair representation of me was quite a rarity. I was shocked by it. I was hopeful that I was witnessing a change in your tactics, but of course, the article to which I am replying certainly burst that bubble. Let me remind you and other interested readers of exactly what I said. In my April, 2000 article entitled "I Have Told You Plainly," I quoted you as saying:
"Brother Haile, tell us plainly. Do you believe that Jesus did not have a human spirit? Don't you believe that all that was involved in the incarnation was that the Word, who was with God in the beginning, entered a body of flesh? Don't you believe that was no change in the spirit of Jesus when He entered that body of flesh? Tell us plainly, brother Haile."
I replied:
"With the exception of asking one bad question, Ronny has fairly represented my understanding of Bible teaching regarding the Lord's holy incarnation."
Ronny, I hate to disappoint you, but I was referring to your one particular quote that I cited when I acknowledged that you had "fairly represented" me. I did not mean that ALL of your representations of me were correct. In fact, I can think of no human who has more misrepresented me than you have. As I said, the very title of the article I am presently responding to is irrefutable proof of this.
Though Ronny Milliner called it "heresy," my entire explanation of Jesus' incarnate nature was as follows:
"Jesus already possessed every spiritual attribute of humanity before He came in the flesh. If not, then His spirit had to be made in man's image, rather than, as the Bible teaches, man's spirit being made in His (Gen. 1:26-27). Being a person of God, Jesus already was a spirit (Jn. 4:24). So to answer your question, No, Ronny, Jesus didn't need any more spirits in order to become human. He already had one. The Bible says He only required a flesh, blood and bone body in order for Him to "share in our humanity" and to be "like His brethren" in His spiritual and biological make-up (Heb. 2:14,17; Lk. 24:39 NIV)."
Ronny claimed that I had not answered his arguments on Jesus' temptation and Philippians 2:5-8. He is mistaken in this. I answered his arguments in my article entitled, Review of Ronny Milliner's Article on 'Neo-Apollinarianism.'" Perhaps Ronny overlooked that article. It is not necessary for me to reproduce those comments here. The article may be easily referenced through the above hyper-link.
Tim Haile
7693 Russellville Rd.
Bowling Green, KY 42101
Email Tim Haile