Oneness pentecostalism, Christian or Cult

[MEE]

Originally posted by Marcia:
MEE, you didn't give any refutations to his arguments; you just told him to go away. Your arguments do not hold water (pun intended), and water baptism as part of salvation has been ably refuted on many threads.

Also, you and I have gone round and round on this before, and you know that my main issue with Oneness is their view of who Jesus is. I consider the baptism issue to be a problem, but secondary to the Jesus issue. Your view of Jesus was denounced by Christians back in the 3rd century.

Marcia, evidently you don't read all the posts. I tried several times to explain the scriptures to manchester, about water baptism in the name of the F,S, and HG, which is Jesus Christ. He just doesn't understand. What more do you want?

My view on the "Oneness of God" may have been denounced by the Catholic Church, in the third century, but I'm not a follower of the CC.

MEE

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by Nevertheless:
[QB] Manchester said: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There was never a baptism in the Bible using the words "in the name of Jesus." You can't find a single one where it says they used those words, or any words similar to it.

MEE already quoted one for you from Acts 19, but here it is again:
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.</font>[/QUOTE]That's false. Read it again. It says they baptized into the name (authority) of Jesus. The words they used to do it, as always, were "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." You will never find a baptism in the Bible where they used any different words. It was always F,S&HS. Always. They never used a "Jesus name" baptism. When people invented that heresy, the Christian church immediately condemned it and called them heretics and non-Christians.

I keep repeating myself because your hearts have been hardened against God and the truth. I will continue to stand for the Bible and history, not the pseudo-history where the Oneness theology made up in the 1900s is somehow true.

Nevertheless, you are the one who needs to study before commenting.

Acts 2:38 rebukes and debunks the Oneness Apostolic teachings, as I have already stated.

 

[tamborine lady]

How 'bout we just baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Ghost, in the name of Jesus.

That covers it all and everybody is happy!!

Amen,

Tam

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by MEE:

My view on the "Oneness of God" may have been denounced by the Catholic Church, in the third century, but I'm not a follower of the CC.

MEE

I've said it before, I'll say it again. There wasn't a "Catholic Church" in the sense we know it today back then. There was just the Christian church. It always believed in the Trinity. When heretics came up with false doctrine, the church clarified the dogma. It was not invented in the third century, but written down and agreed by all the bishops that it had always been the one and only Christian teaching. They only stated doctrines and added to creeds when heretics came up with heresy, and the doctrine needed to be stated.

The Trinity and proper baptism was very clear in the Didache, written in the First Century (around 50-100AD). It shows how baptisms were done back then, and it was clearly F,S&HS. The Didache was used by the early churches and was considered like scripture to many.

 

[manchester]

Here is the Didache on baptism, from the first century:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/didache.htm
http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm

In point of fact, however, we do not read of "baptism in the name of Jesus" in Acts. Instead, we read of baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48), and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). So even Acts is not united in its expression.

In reality, neither of the expression Acts uses is a baptismal formula. Instead, they are designations of the kind of baptism and are intended to distinguish it from the multiple other kinds of baptism which were at that time present in first century Mediterranean culture.

Thus the four references in Acts -- which use two different expressions -- do not overrule Jesus' explicit command to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). This is an explicit, formal command concerning the propagation of the sacrament, whereas Acts's references are merely incidental, casual references to the fact that it was performed, as indicated by the two different expressions that are used in them. It is thus Christ's explicit, formal command which takes precedence over the other, diverse ones.

EARLY CHURCH ON BAPTISM:

The Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Tatian the Syrian
"Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world [Matt. 28:18-20]" (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

Hippolytus
"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he that is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. Again shall he say: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh? The one being baptized then says: I believe. And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).

Tertullian
"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names" (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).

Origen
"Why, when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, does this apostle [Paul] employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying, We who have been baptized into Christ; for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).

The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena
"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water. And Paul said, We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost. After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ" (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can followwhen Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).

http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/chemnitz/id44.html

 

[manchester]

Here are quotes from the early Christians about the the godhead. They were clearly Trinitarian, not unitarian/oneness.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/trinity/church_believed.shtml

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Nevertheless:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
To be honest, i do not really care about the "personal beliefs" someone holds. I can have a "personal belief," for example, that George W. Bush is in fact a cleverly disguised jelly doughnut; unless I can offer evidence supporting said claim I am merely taking up bandwidth.

Well, tragic, if you don't care about others' beliefs, why are you here? Why do you read what others write? That's what message boards are for! </font>[/QUOTE]I'm glad you asked.

Personal beliefs are valueless unless they are in lockstep with the doctrines and spiritual truths found in Scripture. Thus I place very little value on "what someone just beleives," and a wealth of importance on what God, through the Holy Spirit, is teaching them from Scripture.

 

[Marcia]

My view on the "Oneness of God" may have been denounced by the Catholic Church, in the third century, but I'm not a follower of the CC.

The Oneness modalism view was not denounced by the Catholic Church; it was denounced by Christians. And, more importantly, it is still not accepted today. The denial of the Trinity is considered heresy and is unbiblical.

 

[Nevertheless]

Manchester, you are hopeless! You said that there was no place in scripture that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus and I gave you several quotes where they did, then you tell me they are false and proceed to "prove" your case by quoting from the Didache and others.

what you need to realize is that we do not have a word-for-word example of a 'baptism formula'. If only Luke had been a little more detailed in his account of the first Christian baptisms, hmm? He could have written something like, "Peter took Cornelius and his family down to the water, and baptizing them, he said, "I baptize you ..."" But he didn't. And that's the point.

If we are going to base our doctrines on scripture alone, we must use arguments based on the scriptures! If you had simply stuck with saying that Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you would have had no argument from me! Desiring to do what our Lord commands in the way He has commanded it is perfectly legitimate. Why do you feel it necessary to bolster your position with faulty statements?

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by manchester:
Here are quotes from the early Christians about the the godhead. They were clearly Trinitarian, not unitarian/oneness.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/trinity/church_believed.shtml

I don't think that Unitarians and Oneness should be lumped together.
Unitarians want nothing to do with Jesus and I doubt that they would be concerned about Baptizing in the name of Jesus or the FAther ,Son , and Holy Ghost.

 

[untangled]

Cult

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by untangled:
Cult

Could you please tell us what the criterea you use to be labeled a cult?

 

[DHK]

A cult is one which has aberrant and unorthodox doctrine, usually that affects the doctrines of salvation and the deity of Christ.

Oneness doctrine denies the deity of Christ (though they claim not to) because of the very fact that they deny the trinity. Christ must be defined on the terms that the Bible defines him. The Muslims say that they believe in Jesus too. But their Jesus is a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible. Why? He is only a prophet, and not God. The Oneness Jesus is a different Jesus of the Bible also. Why? Because He is not the second person of the second triune Godhead, and that also affects who his true deity really is.

2. They deny the trinity.

3. They believe in baptismal regeneration--that baptism saves. This takes away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to pay the penalty for our sins. It in effect is saying that Christ was not good enough to pay for our sins. Oneness had to help Him along with their baptism.

4. Whether they say they believe this or not, their circular reasoning concerning it gives evidence that they believe speaking in tongues is necessary for tongues. Why? The baptism of the Spirit is necessary for salvation, and speaking in tongues in a sign that one has the baptism of the Spirit; therefore tongues is necessary for salvation.

5. Taking into consideration their position on both baptism and tongues, theirs is not a religion based on grace by faith; but rather on works. They believe that their works (baptism and tongues) will get them to Heaven--not the grace of God through the Lord Jesus Christ and His sacrificial atonement for us on the cross, and our acceptance of that sacrifice by faith. No! In the Oneness religion you must work your way to Heaven, just like the Hindus and Muslims.

That is why it is a cult.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:

Oneness doctrine denies the deity of Christ (though they claim not to) because of the very fact that they deny the trinity.

**DHK, I don't know why I waste my time, but you are correct, we don't believe in a three person god.
Col. 2:[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

** See, "bodily"...one person!..name--&gt; JESUS!


The Oneness Jesus is a different Jesus of the Bible also. Why? Because He is not the second person of the second triune Godhead, and that also affects who his true deity really is.

**No, we believe in the Jesus Christ that hung on the cross at Calvary...the "Son of God." He is the only Jesus that I know of.

**That's correct He is not 'second' in command. He is "The Almighty" and His name is Jesus. Jesus is God!

3. They believe in baptismal regeneration--that baptism saves. This takes away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to pay the penalty for our sins. It in effect is saying that Christ was not good enough to pay for our sins. Oneness had to help Him along with their baptism.

**Faith in water baptism is part of salvation. Water baptism is a command. Matt. 28:19..baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(which I might say.."is Jesus Christ.")

**This takes nothing from the blood of Christ!. Without it, baptism would be nothing. How or why would one be baptized, into Jesus Christ, if He hadn't shed His blood? It all comes by faith.

4. ... The baptism of the Spirit is necessary for salvation, and speaking in tongues in a sign that one has the baptism of the Spirit; therefore tongues is necessary for salvation.

**That's correct! If you choose not to believe in the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, that is up to you, but the Bible says differently.

**Acts 2:4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance.
**What other explanation could they have given if this had not have happened?

**Oh, and don't give me that "Gift of tongues" doctrine, it's not the same thing. The "gift of divers kinds of launguages" is not required for salvation.

5. Taking into consideration their position on both baptism and tongues, theirs is not a religion based on grace by faith; but rather on works.

**Wrong...read posts above!

That is why it is a cult.
DHK

**A cult? ...that's real funny DHK! I think you are trying hard to convience yourself of such accusations. Surely you know better. You are in too deep to admit it.

BTW, don't expect me to respond, I'm tired of agruing with you. I've said what the Oneness saints believe and that's all that should be said. In othere words.."You are wrong!"

MEE

 

[DHK]

At least you admit to your own heresies. You can't defend them very well. But at least you admit to them.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by DHK:
The entire point of this and every other thread is to back up your beliefs by Scripture it is Tragic that "Tragic P" cannot do that. Instead he resorts to personal attacks and innuendo. Baptists believe in sola scriptura. That is why we use the Scripture to back up our believes. That is why we consider Oneness Pentecostal a cult. Their beliefs cannot be backed up by Scripture. After 8 pages they have been proven to be entirely contrary to Scripture which is quited evident for any one reading this thread. I don't have to post a link to prove that. I can go straight to the Bible to give evidence to make my point. Oneness doesn't need a link either. If her cult is Biblical she shouldn't need to appeal to a cult leader; all she should need to appeal to is her Bible. It is sad that she cannot do that.

If you personal beliefs do not line up with the Bible, then there is something lacking in your life as well.
Ye do err not knowing the Scripture, neither the power of God.
This has nothing to do with George Bush or doughnuts. Put a cap on it.
DHK

I'm still waiting for that personal attack to be removed. I guess I was remiss in telling the administrator that this had been resolved; I had assumed so.

 

[DHK]

quoted by Tragic Pizza:

To be honest, i do not really care about the "personal beliefs" someone holds. I can have a "personal belief," for example, that George W. Bush is in fact a cleverly disguised jelly doughnut; unless I can offer evidence supporting said claim I am merely taking up bandwidth.

I have nothing to apologize for, especially to a person who "does not really care about personal beliefs someone holds." I will say it again: The above post is somewhat "tragic." If you don't like puns or a play on words, then so be it. Get a tougher skin.

I stand behind what I have said. Say what you believe and then back it up with Scripture. In how many posts have you done that? This is a debate forum not a complaint forum. Please keep that in mind.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by DHK:
quoted by Tragic Pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />To be honest, i do not really care about the "personal beliefs" someone holds. I can have a "personal belief," for example, that George W. Bush is in fact a cleverly disguised jelly doughnut; unless I can offer evidence supporting said claim I am merely taking up bandwidth.

I have nothing to apologize for, especially to a person who "does not really care about personal beliefs someone holds." I will say it again: The above post is somewhat "tragic." If you don't like puns or a play on words, then so be it. Get a tougher skin.

I stand behind what I have said. Say what you believe and then back it up with Scripture. In how many posts have you done that? This is a debate forum not a complaint forum. Please keep that in mind.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]When I find it neccesary to the discussion to share my specific beliefs, I will. You are unnecesarily abrasive, and personal attacks are a mark of someone who has no substantive points to share, only vitriol.

"Debate" isn't an activity where the loudest shouter wins. One would expect a moderator to understand this.

 

[tragic_pizza]

bump

 

[atestring]

I just wonder what "Amen"
is thinking about this subject?
Is he out there or is he in a Chineese laundrymat?