Oneness pentecostalism, Christian or Cult

[tamborine lady]

Atestring said:

When Groups call everyone that disagrees with them a cult then when a real cult comes along these groups have "cried wolf" and lost credibility and the cult prospers

Tam says: You are so right Atestring. We shouldn't go around calling other peoples religion a cult!

working for Jesus,

Tam

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:


My view of who Jesus is based on God's word.

Look at what MEE said, that Jesus is the "flesh" of God the Father. Do you agree? That is not biblical. That is not the true, Biblical Jesus Christ.

Yes Marcia, I did say it, but I like the way the Bible says it better!

1 Tim. 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1. Who was manifested in the flesh?...Jesus!
2. Who was justified in the Spirit?...Jesus!
3. Who was seen of angels?...Jesus!
4. Who was preached unto the Gentiles?...Jesus!
5. Who was believed on in the world?...Jesus!
6. Who was received up into glory?...Jesus!

Sounds like a Mighty big God to me..that is while He was ahhh!...in the flesh? I think that's right!

Night all!

MEE

</font>[/QUOTE]You are gifted with a true understanding of the Gospel,

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In Colossians Paul says that we have the FULL knowledge of God IN HIM. It also means a knowledge of GOD, in Him. Two Persons, one God, not without the third Person, the Holy Spirit. One day when I understand it fully in this life, that day I have lost it!

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Just a note: As Administrator of the BB, the policy of the Moderators on this issue were set and given to them. They are asked to enforce it.

No links to religious sites that promote any non-Baptist beliefs. As a Baptist site, I am sure you can understand (though probably not agree).

We thank everyone for their understanding. BTW, perceived attacks on a Moderator are not winked at. A word to the wise . . .

Please clarify this rule since
BAptist are autonomous.
Nobody can dictate what is and is not a Baptist belief.
This is left to indvidual churches.
If John Wesley is quoted in a link is this a violation of the rule since he was Anglican and his followers are Methodist?
How about listing with scripture references what is and is not a non Baptist belief.
That way nobody would mention a non Baptist belief by mistake.

[ January 22, 2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: atestring ]

 

[Nevertheless]

Originally posted by MEE:
No, not anything that the BB thinks is against their beliefs. The posters can post against me, using links or quotes, but I can't use professional documentations. Sad isn't it?...especially since we are on a *debate forum*...but that is their rules.

MEE

Sorry, MEE, but you won't get any sympathy from me on this issue. As others have pointed out, this is a privately owned web site, and the owners have the right to run it as they see fit. If you feel that the rules are too restrictive then why do you continue to post here?

If it makes you feel any better, I rarely click on links in BB posts. I'd much rather read what the individual I'm talking to has to say about a subject. Besides that, my internet connection is very slow, so I only go to sites that I'm sure I want to read. I'm sure that there are others with surfing habits similar to mine.

Never

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[tragic_pizza]

I would appreciate it if that personal attack were removed.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Atestring:
I am glad that you have been called out of darkness and into the marvelous light of the gospel. The issue has nothing to do with that.
I just have a problem with groups like Watchman calling a group that they disagree with , a cult.
They are straining at gnats and swallowing camels on this issue.
I am not asking you to agree with Oneness. I am not one myself. But calling these people a cult is not right.
When Groups call everyone that disagrees with them a cult then when a real cult comes along these groups have "cried wolf" and lost credibility and the cult prospers.

Calling a group a cult is not just that you disagree with their beliefs. The word "cult" has a sociological and theological meaning. It simply means, in this case, that it departs from the essentials of historic, orthodox Christianity. In this case, a denial of the Trinity and teaching a Jesus that is not the Biblical Jesus.

We can do away with the word "cult." Would you prefer to use the term that Jesus and God use in the Bible -- false teaching? The issue is not the word we use, but that Oneness teachings are not part of the historic church and do fall into the category of false teaching.

Oneness is a false teaching according to the Bible.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:


My view of who Jesus is based on God's word.

Look at what MEE said, that Jesus is the "flesh" of God the Father. Do you agree? That is not biblical. That is not the true, Biblical Jesus Christ.

Yes Marcia, I did say it, but I like the way the Bible says it better!

1 Tim. 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1. Who was manifested in the flesh?...Jesus!
2. Who was justified in the Spirit?...Jesus!
3. Who was seen of angels?...Jesus!
4. Who was preached unto the Gentiles?...Jesus!
5. Who was believed on in the world?...Jesus!
6. Who was received up into glory?...Jesus!

Sounds like a Mighty big God to me..that is while He was ahhh!...in the flesh? I think that's right!

Night all!

MEE

</font>[/QUOTE]None of these statements give evidence for Oneness.

Jesus was "God manifested in the flesh" but he was not God the Father manifested in the flesh, as Oneness teaches.

Also, saying that Jesus is the "flesh" of God is not the same thing as saying God manifested in the flesh. It makes Jesus sound like he is just the physical part of God the Father and not his own Person, the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

 

[Marcia]

Atestring, why does it have on your own profile under the categories of occupation, interests, religion, home church, favorite Bible verse, and short personal statement the words "resigned from BB"???

You obviously have not resigned from the BB.

What is your religion and church? Why won't you list them?

 

[manchester]

There is no salvation, and no baptism, in a "Jesus name" baptism. The only baptism that is a Christian baptism is in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[manchester]

The UPC cult is disproven and denounced by Acts 2:38. The cult teaches that if you repent and are baptized, you PROBABLY WON'T receive the Holy Spirit, and if you do it will come with speaking in tongues. But the Bible says that if you repent and are baptized, you receive the Holy Spirit - 100% of the time, no fleshly signs required.

 

[manchester]

The earliest Christian writings, like the Didache (50AD) show that baptism was used with the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A true baptism in the name of Jesus uses the words Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A "Jesus name" baptism is not a baptism at all.

 

[tragic_pizza]

manchester, is a trinitarian-form baptism necessary for salvation?

 

[manchester]

Whether baptism is required is debatable. But only a Trinitarian baptism is a Biblical baptism, and the only baptism recognized by God.

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Atestring, why does it have on your own profile under the categories of occupation, interests, religion, home church, favorite Bible verse, and short personal statement the words "resigned from BB"???

You obviously have not resigned from the BB.

What is your religion and church? Why won't you list them?

I was inactive for several months.
I am a member of a SBC church.
I have not updated profile

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by manchester:
The earliest Christian writings, like the Didache (50AD) show that baptism was used with the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A true baptism in the name of Jesus uses the words Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A "Jesus name" baptism is not a baptism at all.

The Didache?...manchester, do you mind posting where this can be found in the Bible? I really don't like going by other documentations, as to how someone else interprtets scripture.

BTW, if a "Jesus name baptism" isn't a baptism; then the Apostles are in a lot of trouble.

Thanks,
MEE

 

[menageriekeeper]

Tell me please MEE, why do you suppose the disciples disobeyed the direct command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 by baptizing only in Jesus' name? Why would they set the church up for a position of disobedience by baptizing only in Jesus' name when Jesus himself clearly commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by manchester:
Whether baptism is required is debatable. But only a Trinitarian baptism is a Biblical baptism, and the only baptism recognized by God.

I am not attacking, but am curious: why wouldn't God recognize a baptism in His Son's name? Is Christ divided?