tragic_pizza
New Member
[ June 10, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Oneness Theology versus Trinity
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
You are very welcom to go to a cult discussion board.
I will give you some Biblical information about the trintity. I don't attach names to it, as I get my doctrine from the Bible not from men. I am not confined to man's system of theology.
In reality, Biblical Christianity teaches that there is only one God. This truth is affirmed again and again in the Bible [Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Timothy 2:5]. The Bible teaches that God is an infinite being Who has no comparison or likeness [Isaiah 40:18,25]. He is an infinite being, Who can only be known by the revelation which He gives of Himself. In John 1:1,2, this infinite God reveals that He unites in the substance of His being a second infinite, eternal Almighty Person, one Whose eternal name is “the Word” [John 1:1; Revelation 19:13]. Being one in substance with God, He also is God. But He is not a second God. In the substance of His being the one true God unites two Infinite, Eternal Almighty Persons. These Persons are co-equal and co-eternal. Both are God, but being of one substance, there is only one God. This is a mystery [Colossians 2:2], which finite persons cannot fully understand . To fully understand it one would also have to be infinite.
This second Person, God-the-Word, Whom the infinite God unites with Himself in the substance of His being, is also most definitely an infinite Person. Because He is infinite, He can be known only by revelation. No man fully knows Him. He is known in the reality of His Person only by God Jehovah [Matthew 11:27]. The Christian Scriptures were given by God to give revelation about this second Person Who is also called God. Those who reject the testimony which God Jehovah has given by the third Person Who is united in the substance of God, God-the-Holy-Spirit, are guilty of blasphemously calling God a liar [1 John 5:10]. Those who teach something about Him which the Christian Scriptures do no teach are, in reality, blasphemously claiming to have greater knowledge than the infinite God.
In further revelation of Himself, the infinite God reveals that there is a third Person united in the substance of God. This third person is called the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19], or the Spirit of truth [John 14:17]. We know that He is one in substance with God because He is called the eternal Spirit [Hebrews 9:14]. Only God is eternal, and since there is only one God, He also must be one in substance with the other persons Who are also called God. So important is this third Person Who is one in substance with God, that blasphemy against Him will never be forgiven [Matthew 12:31,32]. Even denying that He is one in substance with the other two Persons Who are named God may be blasphemy against Him. Further, since He is the One Who moved the writers of the Bible, including the Gospels [John 14:26] to record what they wrote [Acts 28:25; 2 Peter 1:21], rejection and denial of these may also be blasphemy against Him [Hebrews 10:29]. Those who deny the truth of the Christian scriptures should beware lest they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Who, through these Scriptures offers them grace, the undeserved favor of God through Christ’s death as a substitute in their place [1 Peter 3:18]. Rejection of the message of Christ’s death for sinners is rejection of the message declared by God, the Holy Spirit, in the Christian Scriptures. Rejection of it will bring awful consequences and condemnation [Hebrews 10:26-31].
tragic_pizza
New Member
[ June 10, 2005, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
Charles Meadows
New Member
Dean,
Arminius said:
It is the property of the person of the Father, to have his being from himself, or, which is a better phrase, to have his being from no one. But the Son is now said to have his being from himself, or rather, from no one: therefore, the Son is the Father; which is Sabellianism.... If the Son have an essence in common with the Father, but not communicated by the Father, he is collateral with the Father, and, therefore, they are two gods. Whereas, all antiquity defended the unity, the Divine essence in three distinct persons, and placed a salvo on it by this single explanation, "that the Son has the same essence directly, which is communicated to him by the Father; but that the Holy Spirit has the very same essence from the Father and the Son."
I don't think tritheistic could ever be Sabellian - but the notion could of generation of the Son could lead to either view.
Regarding the Nicene Creed. I doubt the average Christian really knows what it specifically says.
In truth the bishops at Nicea probably viewed Arianism as more dangerous than Sabellianism - thus the pronouncement of anathema on anyone believing that the Son was ever nonexistent (before being "begotten").
Personally I think that the average Christian is more guilty of docetism, forgetting that Jesus was also fully human, and thus was a sharer in human weaknesses.
Arminius said:
It is the property of the person of the Father, to have his being from himself, or, which is a better phrase, to have his being from no one. But the Son is now said to have his being from himself, or rather, from no one: therefore, the Son is the Father; which is Sabellianism.... If the Son have an essence in common with the Father, but not communicated by the Father, he is collateral with the Father, and, therefore, they are two gods. Whereas, all antiquity defended the unity, the Divine essence in three distinct persons, and placed a salvo on it by this single explanation, "that the Son has the same essence directly, which is communicated to him by the Father; but that the Holy Spirit has the very same essence from the Father and the Son."
I don't think tritheistic could ever be Sabellian - but the notion could of generation of the Son could lead to either view.
Regarding the Nicene Creed. I doubt the average Christian really knows what it specifically says.
In truth the bishops at Nicea probably viewed Arianism as more dangerous than Sabellianism - thus the pronouncement of anathema on anyone believing that the Son was ever nonexistent (before being "begotten").
Personally I think that the average Christian is more guilty of docetism, forgetting that Jesus was also fully human, and thus was a sharer in human weaknesses.
Yes Charles. Again Arminius observed:
"[The Calvinists say] that the essence of the Father could not be said to be communicated to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, in any other than in an improper sense; but that it was in perfect correctness and strict propriety common alike to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. To these observations I answered, “that this opinion was at variance with the word of God, and with the whole of the ancient Church, both Greek and Latin, which had always taught, that the Son had His Deity from the Father by eternal generation.” To these remarks I subjoined, “that from such an opinion as this, necessarily followed the two mutually conflicting errors, Tri-theism and Sabellianism"
Logically speaking, one cannot be tritheist and Sabellian, yet these are the two twin errors that a denial of eternal generation paradoxically lead into. Not to mention extreme problems in ecclesiology - the whole historic church, including the entire ante-nicene church - was wrong. That would be hard to defend historically, especially since we know from Ignatius that it was the Gnostics who denied the eternal generation of the Son, not the orthodox. It would mean that the apostasy was sudden and complete the moment John breathed his last ... not very likely!
"[The Calvinists say] that the essence of the Father could not be said to be communicated to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, in any other than in an improper sense; but that it was in perfect correctness and strict propriety common alike to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. To these observations I answered, “that this opinion was at variance with the word of God, and with the whole of the ancient Church, both Greek and Latin, which had always taught, that the Son had His Deity from the Father by eternal generation.” To these remarks I subjoined, “that from such an opinion as this, necessarily followed the two mutually conflicting errors, Tri-theism and Sabellianism"
Logically speaking, one cannot be tritheist and Sabellian, yet these are the two twin errors that a denial of eternal generation paradoxically lead into. Not to mention extreme problems in ecclesiology - the whole historic church, including the entire ante-nicene church - was wrong. That would be hard to defend historically, especially since we know from Ignatius that it was the Gnostics who denied the eternal generation of the Son, not the orthodox. It would mean that the apostasy was sudden and complete the moment John breathed his last ... not very likely!
It seems to me that a large number were seriously concerned with Sabellianism as well - hence the extreme reluctance to adopt 'homoousious'. Both were a threat.
I agree that that is a problem ... in fact both these errors strike at the two foundational cornerstones of Christianity - that Christ is [not became, but is in essence] the Son of God, and that Christ is the Messiah or the Anointed Servant [ie that he came as a man, with human limitations, and was anointed by the Holy Spirit at his baptism with the power to perform miracles and healing - not out of his own intrinsic power as the Son of God, which he set aside in obedience to the Father when he became a man].
Are you playing Freud? Or are you claiming to be God? Either way you are being judgemental far beyond what the rules allow. Your false accusation is defamatory and an apology would be in order.
Is it because you do not know Scripture that you do not know how to answer me, and resort to name-calling. If this is how you act in real life I pity you. If what I said is contrarty to Scripture then point it out.
If it is contrary to Oneness belief, go to a book on Oneness and prove it to me. You do know how to use a search enging don't you? There is plenty of information out there to verify what I have said.
OK, Mr. Psychoanalyst, you have gone far enough with your false allegations and slander. As I have said I use Scripture as my standard and point out heresy according to the truth of the Word of God. Should heresy be allowed to stand unchallenged? You are naive if you say yes. "Reprove, rebuke, with all longsuffering and patience." My patience is running out more with you and your false allegations than with the Oneness Pentecostals.
Perrhapst my hurt is that you, Atestring, seem to revel in defaming others. Or perhaps you love to engage in defending heretics. Perhaps you are the wold in sheep's clothing. Are you going to come clean? Do you have a reason for trying to justify the doctrine of heretical cults?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I do not justiy the doctrine of a heretical cult.
I would disagree with you that Oneness are a heretical cult.
I realize you live in Canada.
In the United States of America where I live ,it is not a crimt to disagree with someone.
I have not been baptized in the Name of jesus.
I do not believe that a person has to speak in tongues to be saved. According to your own statement you believe that a person can speak in tongues and have a clear testimony of salvation.
I have had friends that are oneness and have prayed with them and talked to them. I do not consider them to be a cult. It is not that I have not studied what they believe. i do not agree with them on every issue which as a U.S. citizen I have this right. As a believer in the priesthood of believers I have this right. I have the right to disagree with you and you have the right to disagree with me.
I do not consider them a cult. they are save not by calling on buddha, alah, or any other name but are saved because the call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus. That makes them my brother and sister in the Lord. There are som that may not consider themselves my Brother in Christ but that is their problem.
There is some validity in their emphasis on the name of Jesus. Considereing the doctrine ( by your own admission )is not fully understood i am open to hear what God says on the matter wheither it is taught from a Baptist pulpit or any otherr pulpit.
As for me being a wolf in sheeps clothing i have thick skin and will not let your personal attack stop me from hearing both sides of this issue.
What would you think if i called you wolf in sheeps clothing.?
Good! Then you shouldn't be sympathizing or trying to justify the doctrine of the Oneness Pentecostal which are a heretical cult.
Disagreement is your perogative, but it does't have any bearing on the truth.
And this is relative, how??
Neither is it here. In fact you have the freedom to go and join the Church of Satan if you want to. I disagree with their doctrine of course. But you have the freedom to do so, just as you have the freedom to join the Oneness group.
Neither have I, and I never said that you didn't have to be.
If you don't believe a person has to speak in tongues to be saved, why would you associate yourself with the heretical Oneness people who do believe that you have to speak in tongues to be saved. That is heresy, and differes greatly from your latter statement. It takes away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. They believe that they have to help Christ atone for our sins by speaking in tongues and by being baptized. The sacrifice of Christ isn't good enough for them. They have to help him along. It is damnable heresy.
On the other hand, there are many good Christian people that do believe that salvation is by faith, and thus are saved. However they also believe in speaking in tongues, but not as necessary to salvation. There is a big difference. These people may be saved, but confused in a wrong doctrine.
Hovever they are a cult. What you consider in this matter doesn't count for much. They deny the trinity, salvation by faith, believe in baptismal regeneration, make tongues necessary for salvation, and many other heretical doctrines. They are a heretical cult no matter how many friends you have in it. Friends in a cult, doesn't make it any less a cult.
Quite true. There should be no problem.
James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
What happens if a J.W. calls on the name of Jesus Christ? Does he get saved? No, not as long as Jesus Christ is defined as Michael the Archangel, as he is in Jehovah Witness doctrine.
What happens when a Muslim calls upon Jesus Christ? Does he get saved? No, not as long as Christ remains just a prophet as defined by the Islamic religion.
What happens when a Oneness Pentecostal calls upon Jesus Christ? Does he get saved? No, not as long as Christ simply remains a manifestation of the Father, and not the second person of the trinity; not as long as the trinity is denied.
In each case: If Christ is not the Christ of the Bible, He is not Christ at all, but a false god, as Baal was.
You can emphasize the name of Jesus all you want, but if you deny the trinity, you believe in heresy. Case closed.
I would say show me from Scripture where I am wrong. I am challenged many times. I accept the challenge. The Bible is my only authority. If I am wrong I am willing to change. But you must be willing to prove to me from the Bible where I am wrong.
DHK
Dkh, I don't care what you believe. I do not believe your last statement that you are willing to change if shown anything by the scripture. You think that you wear big britches by calling everyone that disagrees with you a heretic and a cult. the problem in calling everyone that disagrees with you a cult is when a real cult comes along people like you have cried wolf so many times that nobody listens.
I am not a oneness but I can love oneness people .
By the way they do believe in Salvation
by grace.
I guess you want me to say that they do not so you can have your ego stroked but I am not interested in your ego.
I am not a oneness but I can love oneness people .
By the way they do believe in Salvation
by grace.
I guess you want me to say that they do not so you can have your ego stroked but I am not interested in your ego.
That is untrue. It is needless slander and you know it.
If you are any kind of decent Christian or gentlemen, you will retract or apologize for your slander and personal allegations. The lies, the untruths, the disgusting innuendoes here are not becoming of any Christian. I would expect better of you. Are you a Christian or not? Jesus said "You shall know them by their fruits." I will await your apology, and thus will know you by your fruit.
I never suggested you couldn't. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves.
No they do not. That is a false statement. Any cult that believes in baptismal regeneration does not believe in salvation by grace. The two cannot go hand in hand; they contradict each other.
I am not interested in my ego, noe in anyone else's. I am purely interested in what the Word of God says, and so should you be. If the Word of God condemns the teaching of the Oneness Pentecostal, then so should you. That is all that one should be concerned here. It is a matter of truth vs. error; not a matter of one's emotionalism.
ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM
This is an excellent website that you should read.
DHK
dkh,
do youe want me to apologize for disagreeing with you.
If you apologized everytime that you disagreed with someone you wouldn't have tome to post anything.
I do not agree with everything that oneness believe but they are not a cult.
http://www.altupc.com/articles/upcicult.htm
this is an excellent article that you should read.
do youe want me to apologize for disagreeing with you.
If you apologized everytime that you disagreed with someone you wouldn't have tome to post anything.
I do not agree with everything that oneness believe but they are not a cult.
http://www.altupc.com/articles/upcicult.htm
this is an excellent article that you should read.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
What is a cult "really".
It is convenient to pick something like the Trinity and say that all who do not teach it - are a cult. But as Atestring points out -- that gets to be meaningless after a while when you look at "real" cults. It reduces down to an inner-Christian name-calling game. I am trinitarian but I have a hard to time calling every Christian group that is not trinitarian - a cult.
The Disciples were not trinitarian until after the cross - were they "a cult" before? Was Judaism or the Hebrew faith as started by God "a cult"?
So back to the question what IS a cult?
If it is a cult-following of a single charismatic-leader then one could argue that the Popes of the past few decades (and probably 14 centuries at least) had a cult-following. Is the RCC " a cult"?
I would argue that it fits the bill as close as any within the Christian church.
Think about it - if the Catholic church was only 10,000 members strong and had started last year "praying to the dead" calling their leader "HOly Father", inventing purgatory, persecuting the saints, magical sacraments, Mary sinless like God, powerful like God, Mediator Like God, Queen of heaven and priests with powers to confect God and forgive sins - swooning over the Pope, etc... there would be "no end" to main stream Christian groups calling that new upstart " a cult".
In Christ,
Bob
It is convenient to pick something like the Trinity and say that all who do not teach it - are a cult. But as Atestring points out -- that gets to be meaningless after a while when you look at "real" cults. It reduces down to an inner-Christian name-calling game. I am trinitarian but I have a hard to time calling every Christian group that is not trinitarian - a cult.
The Disciples were not trinitarian until after the cross - were they "a cult" before? Was Judaism or the Hebrew faith as started by God "a cult"?
So back to the question what IS a cult?
If it is a cult-following of a single charismatic-leader then one could argue that the Popes of the past few decades (and probably 14 centuries at least) had a cult-following. Is the RCC " a cult"?
I would argue that it fits the bill as close as any within the Christian church.
Think about it - if the Catholic church was only 10,000 members strong and had started last year "praying to the dead" calling their leader "HOly Father", inventing purgatory, persecuting the saints, magical sacraments, Mary sinless like God, powerful like God, Mediator Like God, Queen of heaven and priests with powers to confect God and forgive sins - swooning over the Pope, etc... there would be "no end" to main stream Christian groups calling that new upstart " a cult".
In Christ,
Bob
Marcia
Active Member
Part of what a cult is, from a Christian view, is a group whose teachings depart from orthodox, historical Christianity on the essentials of God's nature, Christology, the HS, salvation, the work of Christ on the cross, and his resurrection.
Therefore, denying the deity of Christ and his bodily resurrection make the JW's a cult. Denying the Trinity (and other things) make the Mormons a cult. And denying the Trinity and error on who God is and who Christ is make the Oneness beliefs a cult. All of these groups mentioned deny an essential teaching from the Bible about the nature of God and/or Christ. When there is an error about this, you are starting off with a flawed view and other errors result, but the most serious is about the nature of God and/or Christ.
Jesus is not God the Father and he is not the HS. To say he is goes against the Bible, goes against the historic faith once for all delivered to the saints, and is an attack on the nature of God and the nature of Jesus. Heresies are attacks; they are not trivial mistakes. We are told to take stands against false teachings and to reject a God or Jesus that departs from scripture. Oneness departs from scripture; we are to reject their teachings.
Therefore, denying the deity of Christ and his bodily resurrection make the JW's a cult. Denying the Trinity (and other things) make the Mormons a cult. And denying the Trinity and error on who God is and who Christ is make the Oneness beliefs a cult. All of these groups mentioned deny an essential teaching from the Bible about the nature of God and/or Christ. When there is an error about this, you are starting off with a flawed view and other errors result, but the most serious is about the nature of God and/or Christ.
Jesus is not God the Father and he is not the HS. To say he is goes against the Bible, goes against the historic faith once for all delivered to the saints, and is an attack on the nature of God and the nature of Jesus. Heresies are attacks; they are not trivial mistakes. We are told to take stands against false teachings and to reject a God or Jesus that departs from scripture. Oneness departs from scripture; we are to reject their teachings.