Marks of a Cult

Marcia,

I said...

And you said...

From 1 John 2:23, where God tells us specifically that if anyone "denies the Son"(Hindus, Buddhists, New Agers, Islam, non-messianic Jews and many others) that they do not have the Father.

From 1 Cor 12:3, where God tells us specifically that if anyone cannot say "Jesus is Lord"(Jehovahs Witnesses, ultra liberal protestants and many others) they do not have the Holy Spirit.

From 2 Timothy 4:3-4 and 1 Peter 2:17-20, where God tells us specifically that if anyone teaches ridiculous fables and bizzare scenerios that appeal to the flesh(Mormons...God lives out on some star somewhere, he once was a man, we can be a god and start our own universe, Roman Catholicism, and many others) that they are wells without water, for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever.

From Galatians 1: 6-8, where God tells us specifically that if anyone denies justification by faith alone, and adds any form of our works as being necesarry for our justification(Roman Catholics, EOC, and many others, and possibly the Oneness camp) they are trusting a gospel that God has cursed.

Did God just slip up and forget the one about "If anyone says we are manifestations and not persons"?

The Oneness folks confess Jesus as Lord, they certainly dont deny Him, and they acknowledge God has a triune "manifestation". And, they dont proclaim weird, bizzare myths and fables that appeal to the flesh as the Mormons and Roman Catholics do.

However, if what I have read lately is correct, they could be adding our works to Gods gospel of justification by faith alone as being required to earn heaven. If so, they have a huge problem that could effect their eternal destiny if that is the attitude of the heart of an individual Oneness follower.

I am much MUCH more concerned about that...because God speaks directly to that...then how they believe Gods triune nature works itself out.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

I feel greatly honored and reassured that Satan's apostle disagrees with me. Twisting scripture in order to divide Christendom is what the AntiChrist does.

 

The idea that God can be procreated - or that Mary procreated God -- and so also our parents procreated each of us... leads to the heresy of the RCC regarding "Mother of God" - (A title for Mary - not a name for Jesus) that no NT author EVER used in all of scripture.

So when the RCC invents that doctrine and then experiences the "result of that error" - what is the incentive for non-Catholics to "ignore what happens when you drink that tea" and pretend that "that error causes no damage"??

I find that error-with-no-consequences idea to be fascinating. Especially when the consequences in the QUEEN of Heaven, Prayers to the CO-Mediator who is All powerful ... can be so clearly seen.

When asked how the RCC ITSELF makes the connection between the unbiblical title for Mary "Mother of God" and all these other follow on heresies -- the documenation is abundant.

But then... just ignore the evidence?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Marcia said...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now...could you please show me "book chapter verse" where God says something to the effect that "If anyone denies that we are 3 distict persons, and rather says that we are 3 manifestations, let him be accursed"?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. Prior to the resurrection all the disciples took that position that God is ONE not THREE in ONE. They were wrong - but not accursed.

#2. The RCC claims that if we do not downplay the incarnation by emphasizing PROCREATION instead - then we are in error. But we are ALL procreated - the great DIFFERENCE with Christ is that He is the INCARNATION of a pre-existing person - he is not God PROCREATED.

And hence - they teach another Christ... one who shares his attributes with Mary, sinless, allpowerful, co mediator, co redeemer... one who procreated God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you "sure" you see NO connection between the unbiblical title for Mary "Mother of God" (speaking of God in procreation terms - used by NO NT author) and the related heresies to that doctrinal error?

Read "closely".. See if perhaps the RCC itself - "notices it".

Hmmm - instructive I would say.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes but what if JPII is just a mean old anti-Catholic trying to twist RC doctrine about the implications of the unbiblical title "Mary - Mother of God"?

err umm that would be "Pope JPII".

Ok never mind.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Oneness groups do deny the Son because the Son they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. I am not sure how many times I must say that. You don't seem to see that or agree with it.

Their theology is bizarre -- I find it bizarre to believe that God the Father, Jesus and the HS are all the same person. I find it bizarre to believe that when Jesus said, "The Father sent me" he was talking about himself. This would mean Jesus is lying, btw. I find it bizarre to believe that Jesus said, "Not my will by thy will be done," to God the Father, but was really addressing himself. It is bizarre to believe that when Jesus died, and said, "I commend my spirit to You" to God the Father, he was commending his spirit to himself. And what are you going to do with Jesus' baptism, D28, when you have Jesus, God the Father's voice from above, and the HS descending all at the same time? This was an illusion/deception from God? Don't you say that the Oneness view makes mincemeat of the Bible and makes things Jesus said either ridiculous or untrue?

When they say "Jesus is Lord," it is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Mormons and the Word-Faith groups, who are heretics, also say "Jesus is Lord." The question is, who is their Jesus? Their Jesus is a false Jesus.

You say they say a triune manifestation they mean God is taking on the roles of the Father, the Son, and the HS. This is not what the Bible teaches and is contrary to what the Bible teaches. . I don't know about you, but when something contrary to the Bible is taught, I reject it. That is why, D28, Oneness groups are not accepted as Christians by Trinitarians and have not been.

 

The Oneness groups do deny the Son because the Son they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. I am not sure how many times I must say that. You don't seem to see that or agree with it.

Their theology is bizarre -- I find it bizarre to believe that God the Father, Jesus and the HS are all the same person. I find it bizarre to believe that when Jesus said, "The Father sent me" he was talking about himself. This would mean Jesus is lying, btw. I find it bizarre to believe that Jesus said, "Not my will by thy will be done," to God the Father, but was really addressing himself. It is bizarre to believe that when Jesus died, and said, "I commend my spirit to You" to God the Father, he was commending his spirit to himself. And what are you going to do with Jesus' baptism, D28, when you have Jesus, God the Father's voice from above, and the HS descending all at the same time? This was an illusion/deception from God? Don't you say that the Oneness view makes mincemeat of the Bible and makes things Jesus said either ridiculous or untrue?

When they say "Jesus is Lord," it is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Mormons and the Word-Faith groups, who are heretics, also say "Jesus is Lord." The question is, who is their Jesus? Their Jesus is a false Jesus.

You say they say a triune manifestation they mean God is taking on the roles of the Father, the Son, and the HS. This is not what the Bible teaches and is contrary to what the Bible teaches. . I don't know about you, but when something contrary to the Bible is taught, I reject it. That is why, D28, Oneness groups are not accepted as Christians by Trinitarians and have not been. </font>[/QUOTE]The Jesus that is preached by the Word of Faith Churches and the United PEntecostal Chrurches is the Jesus of the Bible.
There is lots of hogwash on the internet (ex David Cloud) there may be a few disagreements in theology but there is a differnece in other Denominations that are referred to as orhtodox.
The Mormons are a differrent type that follow The Teachings of the 12 apostles of the Mormon Church rather than the teaching of JEsus. The United Pentecostals and the Word of Faith should not be lumped into the same catagory as the mormons.
I am neither UPC or Word Of Faith but I will defend the fact that both of these groups Love Jesus. I have freinds in both of these groups And I am talking about the Jesus of The Bible.

 

Posted by Bob Ryan

Well, I can see that just giving facts here can cause incredible responses. I was merely giving the factual history of these 3 words. Mother of God is accurate in that Mary was the mother of God the Son, Jesus. I myself make no use of the term "Mother of God" as I have no reason to, but Mary did conceive Jesus in the womb by the HS as scripture tells us, and Jesus was fully 100% man, as scripture tells us. Mary was not the mother of God the Father and no one ever claimed that. But Jesus had to have a human mother to be human and he did. That's pretty clear in scripture. And my info is correct -- this phrase was involved in a controversey about the nature of Jesus and at the time Mary was not the issue.

Bob, I did not say the following but you have me saying it. I was quoting D28 in a post. He said this.

 

Posted by atestring:

If it's not the Jesus of the Bible, it is not the Biblical Jesus. I don't think that because you have friends in these 2 groups (Oneness and Word Faith) makes them orthodox Christians, atestring.

Word Faith is a heresy. Their teachers claim that Jesus did not atone for sin on the cross but had to go to hell afterwards and fight Satan. Also, Copeland has said that God has a body. Those are both heresies. Aside from that, they teach that you can speak creation into existence like God, and that men are little gods. Some of them have taught that Jesus did not become God until he was baptized.

 

Marcia,

They believe He was born of Mary in Bethlehem, was baptised by John the Baptist, preached salvation to all those who would embrace Him, taught the sermon on the mount, the bread of life discourse, and all the rest of the teachings we have from Him, performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, was crucified on our behalf to die for our sins, was God and proclaimed Himself to be God by rising from the dead. He was then visibly seen ascending into the clouds with a promise to return.

Nope, that sure isnt the Jesus of the scriptures, is it?

So...you believe in 3 Gods?

No? We believe in one God existing in 3 persons. They believe in one God existing in 3 manifestations.

Again, I am very very certain that we are right on this, and they are wrong. But to say their teaching on this is "bizzare" is very strange to me. Its no more bizzare that how our view of Gods triune nature comes across to them.

Bizzare is the RCC's "Queen of the Universe Mary" and "Purgatory" and praying to "Saints" to protect you when traveling, and "holy" water and saying a cracker is Jesus Christ and we get to go and "eat" Jesus every Sunday, or the Mormons God existing on the Star "Karlon"(or whatever it is) and He was once a man like us, and we get to go and become a "God" and start our own universe(oh boy oh boy!), etc etc etc.

This is no bizarre theology. They simply believe the triune nature of God workes itself out differently then we do. You keep saying they are denying Gods triune nature. They dont.

I AGREE WITH YOU! I have said over and over that I agree with you. But they are not denying a "triune" nature of God, they just believe it works itself out differently then we do.

Let me try this again...

1) They believe the Father is God

2) They believe Jesus Christ is God

3) They believe the Holy Spirit is God.

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

"3" means "Tri"

"Tri" as in..."Triune"

Of course they believe their is a "triune" nature going on. They are just wrong in how it works itself out.

And I do to. Thats why I'm not "Oneness". But I am not going to condemn them for believing that Gods triune nature works itself out differently than I do, when God doesnt.

I will be condemnatory towards people who deny Christ, do not call Him Lord, teach weird and bizzare doctrines that appeal to the flesh, and deny justification by faith alone...because God authorises me to. I shared the appropriate scriptures with you before.

Groups of fallible men at times past, long after the scriptures were finalised, decided to call certain beliefs by certain names, and then to condemn people for believing the things that they decide to call by those certain names.

I, however, am a "sola scriptura" guy. I dont care what fallible men say, I care what God says.

I dont care what "Trinitarians" have to say.(And I am "trinitarian"! )

I am a "sola scriptura" guy. I do not base my conviction on the dictates of men, be they Roman Catholic, Baptist, Assembly of God, or any thing else.

I care what God tells us in the scriptures.

God bless you,

Mike

 

Marcia,

What do you think I do with those, Marcia?

I would say that is one of many passages of scripture that support the truth of the belief that we call "the trinity".

Here are some other good ones...

Matthew 28:19
John 14:26
John 15:26
2 Corinthians 13:14
1 Peter 1:2

There is a difference between believing someone is wrong about something, and being condemnatory towards them.

When it comes to being condemnatory towards something...or the people who believe it...I couldnt care less what some council of men have decided. I care what God tells me in His scripture.

Marcia, are you aware that because you are not a Roman Catholic a "council of men" met at Trent about 500 years ago and decided that you, Marcia are accursed because you do not submit to Rome?

Are you going to say "Well, I better quickly come home to 'Mother Church', the Roman Catholic Church", since that council condemns you? If not, than why are you placing trust in a different "council of men" who decided to condemn people for not understanding or articulating Gods nature just as they do?

God bless,

Mike

 

Marcia,

I'm curious. Are you a "sola scriptura" person, as I am?

I'm just wondering because you seem to place great import on things like what "Trinitarians" say, and you seem to place great weight on what a council of men decided long ago(after the scriptures were completed) about something, as if that made it equal to scriptures. You use words that are not in the scriptures like "Sabbalianism", "Modalism" and "Nestorianism", as if those were in the scriptures. In another post somewhere I believe it was you who actually said that something was true because a "creed" said so.

Maybe you and I just come at things from different universes, so to speak.(I dont at all mean I'm saved and your not. I'm talking about mindsets)

I am a "sola scriptura" guy 1st, last, and everywhere in between. If you try to prove something to me using a creed, council decision, fancy word, or any other thing determined by men...no matter how noble and well intentioned they might be...dont waste your time. I'm not saying those council decisions arent necesarrily good decisions, they could very well be ones I agree with and consider to be correct.

But they are not in even the slightest bit authoritative.

It is the scriptures that I am interested in.

Blessings,

Mike

[ June 20, 2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

 

Lets see - labels or scripture, labels or scripture.... I vote scripture.

Labels are convenient and certainly the Jews of Christ's day used them liberally when speaking of Christ - but...

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I believe Jesus is God.
#2. John describes Jesus' body in Rev 1

I guess that "labels me" too.

At least I don't teach purgatory and praying to the dead though those heresies seems to be "more acceptable" for some than simply accepting Rev 1 for what it says.

Word of Faith - teach that Jesus atoned for our sins by His death - but not exactly the way that Marcia views it. Maybe they are wrong - but the fact that they still claim he atoned for our sins by His death - can't be ignored.

What is even more "instructive" is that they are far more consistent in their logic than those who claim that Jesus did not pay "what we owe".

They think we "owe" the debt of going to hell after we die - burning in hell while dead - with Satan in charge of hell. (As if God created hell for Satan to torment the dead). So - ok they are totally wrong on that point - but having gone to that RC doctrine - they then "consistently" argue that Christ "pays our debt" and they put Him in the place they "think" we would go as sinners when we die.

So although I think they are in error as to what happens when the sinner dies - they are at least consistent in thinking that Christ "pays exactly what we owe".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am sorry if I attributed that question to you. I thought the question that was being asked of you meant that you had taken the position the question speaks of at one time.

I was simply pointing out that this is non-trinitarian view is the position the disciples took pre-cross - can we agree on at least that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

If it's not the Jesus of the Bible, it is not the Biblical Jesus. I don't think that because you have friends in these 2 groups (Oneness and Word Faith) makes them orthodox Christians, atestring.

Word Faith is a heresy. Their teachers claim that Jesus did not atone for sin on the cross but had to go to hell afterwards and fight Satan. Also, Copeland has said that God has a body. Those are both heresies. Aside from that, they teach that you can speak creation into existence like God, and that men are little gods. Some of them have taught that Jesus did not become God until he was baptized. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not saying that because I have friends that are word of FAith and UPC that qualifies them to be be orthodox. I have known a few mormons also.
The reason I mentioned that I have freinds in these groups is because I have had a chance to talk one on one to these people instead of reading internet articles and books by so called apologist. It is very popular to bash these two groups.
They believe in the God of the Bible and believe that JEsus is the Way the truth and the life.
If you get a thrill out of bashing these two groups then live it up, but I do not agree with you.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Marcia is right about this one thing. The disciples did not believe that the Father and Jesus were the "same person", Jesus never claimed to be "the same person as the Father" and NT authors did not teach that.

Even though the disciples believed in "one God" and not in the Trinity - they did not believe that Jesus was the same PERSON as the Father.

However I am not sure how you find their error in believe they are one Person - to be greater than praying to the dead, replacing baptism, burning bibles, slaughtering the saints, not praying directly to God, teaching that Mary is "sinless like Christ, redeemer with Christ, mediator with Christ, all powerful like Christ, queen of heaven, Mother of God".

In Christ,

bob

 

Bob,

Jesus said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father", did He not?

The "oneness" folks probably love that one in support of their doctrine. Of course, we all know that Jesus Chstist prayed to the Father and refered to Him as His Father.

We understand that He wasnt saying that He was simply "the Father" leaving heaven and becoming Jesus Christ. The Father spoke of Jesus from heaven as Jesus was being baptised.

God did not say: "You are the beloved ME, in me I am well pleased"

He said: "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased."

We understand that Jesus was not claiming to be the Father literally, but He was making a case for His identity as being God, and that we do not have three Gods but one God.

Of course, we vehemently deny that we believe in 3 gods when we are accused of that. When we do we are proclaiming the oneness of God.

God bless,

Mike

 

The Triune God is not the Trinitarian God. They believe that God the Father, Jesus, and the HS are all one and the same. That is NOT the God I believe in nor is it the God of scripture.

I am not being condemnatory; I am rejecting a false teaching which we are commanded to do. I am going on scripture on this -- I did not know about the Councils, the term 'modalism,' or the early heresies when I was first saved and learned about the Oneness belief at some point not long after that. At that point, I believed, based solely on the Bible, that the Oneness God/Jesus/HS is not the God, Jesus or HS of the Bible. They are not just "working it out" differently, they are rejecting the teaching of the Trinitarian God.

Atestring, I am not "bashing" anyone. We are discussing theological beliefs. Telling me I am getting a "thrill" of "bashing" people is a very unfair accusation.

We are told to hold to sound doctrine and to reject false teachings, false Christs, etc. A Jesus who is the same being as God the Father is not the Jesus I believe in and it is not the Jesus who saved me.