Foreknowledge and God's Omnipresence

[Andy T.]

Trinity = three persons, one essence.

DHK has been defending the three persons aspect, while npetreley has been defending the one essence aspect. The two must remain in balance else we fall into modalism on the one hand or polytheism on the other.

In my experience, people tend to err towards modalism, which is probably why DHK is being so adamant. It is a dangerous doctrine that some are being deceived by in our time.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
DHK has been defending the three persons aspect, while npetreley has been defending the one essence aspect. The two must remain in balance else we fall into modalism on the one hand or polytheism on the other.

In my experience, people tend to err towards modalism, which is probably why DHK is being so adamant. It is a dangerous doctrine that some are being deceived by in our time.

Just for clarification: I agree with you. And I'm not defending the oneness as if it's more important. I'm just pointing out that it's true, and to say that the oneness does not exist is to deny the plain meaning of scripture. That's all. I never even gave it much thought until this thread.

 

[Andy T.]

Nicholas,

I know where you are coming from. The tension between the three and one is similar to the tension between justification and sanctification. Sometimes we defend so ardently that J is not by works, that we can ignore the importance of S and slip into antinomianism, while other times we defend the importance of S to the point where we can slip into legalism or works-righteousness. There is a tension there that we have to keep in balance and keep reminding ourselves the truth of both and the distinctiveness of both.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Posted by Me4Him
One of the characteristic of a carnal interpretation I've noticed is the restriction of "either, or", Jesus can be either the Father, or the son, but he can't be "both".

This is not a "restriction!" Jesus is not both Father and Son! To say so is modalism. </font>[/QUOTE]This is where this conversation developed from.
Either Marcia is right or Me4Him is right.
Both cannot be right.
Choose which position is the correct one and why.
DHK

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Posted by Me4Him
One of the characteristic of a carnal interpretation I've noticed is the restriction of "either, or", Jesus can be either the Father, or the son, but he can't be "both".

This is not a "restriction!" Jesus is not both Father and Son! To say so is modalism. </font>[/QUOTE]This is where this conversation developed from.
Either Marcia is right or Me4Him is right.
Both cannot be right.
Choose which position is the correct one and why.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Marcia is right. There are three distinct persons in the Godhead. But they are all one in essence. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." He didn't say, "I and the Father are the same."

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." He didn't say, "I and the Father are the same."

That's a good way of illustrating why the truth that they are one doesn't necessarily lead to modalism, thanks.

I'd quote the hymn that calls them three-in-one, but I can't do that with a straight face because it always reminds me of the oil.

 

[saturneptune]

npet,
your in depth analysis is greatly appreciated

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
DHK has been defending the three persons aspect, while npetreley has been defending the one essence aspect. The two must remain in balance else we fall into modalism on the one hand or polytheism on the other.

In my experience, people tend to err towards modalism, which is probably why DHK is being so adamant. It is a dangerous doctrine that some are being deceived by in our time.

Just for clarification: I agree with you. And I'm not defending the oneness as if it's more important. I'm just pointing out that it's true, and to say that the oneness does not exist is to deny the plain meaning of scripture. That's all. I never even gave it much thought until this thread. </font>[/QUOTE]The Oneness doctrine, as it is known, is that Jesus is both the Son and the Father. This is why I was questioning the statement of Me4Him which indicated this belief. This is not a Christian belief and, as DHK pointed out, was declared a heresy.

So we are not talking about Jesus and the Father being one in essence, but being the same Person: Jesus is God the Father and is the Son. In other words, the Oneness teachings (as they are called) deny the Trinity. They are not just ambiguous on it - they adamantly deny and denounce it. This is a serious issue.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Marcia:
The Oneness doctrine, as it is known, is that Jesus is both the Son and the Father. This is why I was questioning the statement of Me4Him which indicated this belief. This is not a Christian belief and, as DHK pointed out, was declared a heresy.

So we are not talking about Jesus and the Father being one in essence, but being the same Person: Jesus is God the Father and is the Son. In other words, the Oneness teachings (as they are called) deny the Trinity. They are not just ambiguous on it - they adamantly deny and denounce it. This is a serious issue.

Perhaps this is what led to the misunderstanding of what I was saying. I've never heard of the oneness doctrine, so when I used the word "oneness" I was just describing the fact that the trinity really is three in one (ouch - I hate that expression, see above). I'll try to think of another word that doesn't also refer to some bizarre doctrine or belief system if the subject comes up again. How about "unitarian"? Just kidding...

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
npet,
your in depth analysis is greatly appreciated

Thanks. I'm glad to know that it edified someone.

 

[saturneptune]

Npet,
I agree with most everything you post. Your theology seems very solid to me. I just dont like the names back and forth.

 

[Marcia]

npretreley, thanks for your post clarifying that you did not know about the Oneness followers.

They are usually called Oneness Pentecostals, though not all Pentecostals, of course, are Oneness. The Oneness people split off from the other Pentecostals because they denied the Trinity, a position totally rejected by the other Pentecostals.

One of the largest groups of Oneness Pentecostals is the UPC, the United Pentecostal Church Int'l. There are others, and then there are independent Oneness churches.

The tricky thing is that they can sound very Christian unless you listen carefully. Also, some of the websites of these groups/churches will obfuscate their statement of faith by saying they believe that God manifests as Father, Son, and HS, so that it sounds Trinitarian. Some don't bother with a Statement of Faith.

You have probably heard of these people:
T D Jakes has a Oneness background and refuses to acknowledge the Trinity.

Phillips, Craig and Dean are all Oneness pastors.

Tommy Tenney, who wrote "The God Chasers," is Oneness.

They tend to be legalistic and believe that they are the only real Christians, and you have to baptized in the name of Jesus only. This has given them the nickname of "Jesus Only" groups.

Here are some links (Christian sites) on Oneness if you want to learn more:
http://www.christiandefense.org/oneness.htm

http://www.carm.org/oneness.htm

http://www.watchman.org/profile/onenesspro.htm

Phillips, Craig, and Dean
http://www.aomin.org/PCD.html

 

[npetreley]

Marcia, thanks for all the information. Now you've got my curiosity piqued, so I will look at some of those links. But I confess that I'm totally ignorant on this topic - and I mean totally. Never heard of those people, the Jesus Only groups or The God Chasers. In fact, if you had asked me who Phillips, Craig and Dean were, I probably would have said "some rock group I guess".