UPC or Oneness Pentecostals

I was seeing "Trinity" and "triune" as having slightly different meanings. "Trinity" is specifically the doctrine spelled out at Nicaea in terms of "three persons". Triune is a bit more generic and I take it to mean any "three-in-one" concept, whether person,
"manifestations", etc. so modalism can technically fall into the category of "triune", though it is definitely not a "trinity". (Swedenborg as well as TD Jakes have called their modalistic concept a trinity though.)

 

Actually, rsr, how many of 'em in the pews would know what modalism is?

 

Anytime some has a belief and they teach, or tell others about what they believe(christians singing) of course what they believe is going to be a part of it. Would you tell someone anything about the bible and not tell what you believe, but only what they want you to say? No yu wouldn't, and they aren't either, if they are oness penecostals. Which I really don't know.

Are we to compromise what we say we believe simply to have something we want, like listening to music.

We are told in the bible not to have anything to do with false teachers, that would include false believers who sing our music.
</font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm,

I agree with that to some extent.

On Crosswalk, we're having this same conversation.

I mentioned that I might listen to some Mylon and Broken Heart and some PC&D, even though they have some adhere to some questionable doctrine because they keep it out of the music and I tend to take the music for what it is.

On the other hand, I would never listen to someone like Carman because he freely mixes bad theology into his music.

I want to think about this some and get back to you.

Mike

http://www.randystonehill.com

BTW, Ozzy Osbourne is not a Satanist.

 

What might this refer to? I know he does silly things sometimes, (Holy Ghost Hop, etc) and I was disappointed when he appeared at MSG with Rodney Howard-Browne ("The Holy Ghost Bartender" of "Counterfeit Revival" fame. My friends and I passed up the free admission because of that). But other than that, his theology seems to be good. What exactly do you have in mind?

 

There are many doctrines floating around concerning the Godhead. There are more than one version of a Triune God, A trinity, Tritheism.

Some believe in 3 persons in the Godhead while others believe there is a Father and the Holy Spirit but they are not persons but spirit beings while Jesus is the only person in the Godhead. The only bodily manifestation.

Jesus himself said that the Father is a spirit

There are those who believe that it was the Father who appeared in person to Abraham while others teach it was Jesus. Yet they still teach a Trinitarian doctrine.

There are also those who teach that there is a Father and a son but the Holy Ghost is the poured out emanation of both Father and Son.

The Bible does declare that Jesus is the manifestation of the FULLNESS of the Godhead bodily. Yet no where in the Bible do we find any concrete evidence that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is a person. John called the Holy Ghost a he and all of a sudden that is proof there is a bodily manifestation called the Holy Ghost. What do we do with the scriptures that says that the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Father and then again the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Son. This I have heard

Trintarians and Oneness both say that the Godhead is a mystery. They both agree that we won't really know the fullness of who God is until we get to Heaven.

What I get tired of from everyone is people declaring both from the Trinitarian side and the Oneness side that people will go to Hell over their believes concerning Doctrine. This totally denigrates salvation by grace. The Oneness people believe that Jesus saves them and that it is through belief in him that ultimately they have salvation. They just believe that Baptism and Speaking Tongues is part of the faith and belief system. There have been baptists who believed baptism is part of salvation.

We find one scripture in Matthew that says to Baptize in the NAME of the FAther, Son, and Holy Ghost and technically when we use this formula in baptism are we really calling the name. It can be argued we are and it can be argued we are not but how can anyone condemn Oneness people from baptizing in the Name of Jesus when all throughout Acts the apostles did use the name of Jesus to baptize people. Even Paul in handling a controversy in a church when people were arguing who their spiritual parent was said :"Were you baptized in the name of Paul?" This makes it clear that a name was used then.

When this whole controversy came up about the Oneness doctrine the Assemblies of God was about to vote on changing the formula for baptism to Jesus' name based on the book of Acts. They were not going to deny the doctrine of the Trinity but when the Oneness doctrine appeared they backed off of changing to Jesus' name lest they be confused with the Oneness people.

The issue of baptism being necessary or not has been a controversy for hundreds of years. The Oneness people do not believe it is the water that saves but they believe that they become part of the Bride of Christ when they take on his name through baptism. They also believe that it is also a matter of obedience because Jesus said "He that Believeth and IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED."
Also they know that Peter made the statement that Baptism doth now save us.

We believe and we say we are saved. They say that baptism is part of the believing in Jesus.

I really don't understand any Baptist wanting to argue about baptism when it is part of belonging to a Baptist church.

Baptists argue about pre-destination and eternal security. There are many threads on both of these subjects but I don't believe these are salvation issues.

As far as Oneness people being those who think works saves them comes from people within the organizations that teach their outward dress codes are salvation issues the stand in reality is that they are not salvation issues but issues of pleasing God in their views. There have been baptists who taught against women cutting hair or wearing makeup or wearing pants.

I remember when I was a kid the Baptist church I attended taught it was sin to wear shorts, to dance, etc and that if you did you would go to Hell yet they would also teach eternal security.

Many times when the Catholic theologians, whether they be ArchBishops, Cardinals, Priests are cornered about the Worship of Mary and it not being taught in the Bible they have retorted that Protestants teach the doctrine of the TRinity which is not found in the Bible either. In the catholic encyclopedias until the 1970's under the heading of word Trinity it stated emphatically that this doctrine is a doctrine conceived in the early 300's at the Councils of both Nicea and Trent. So there are catholics who doubt the doctrine of the TRinity and there are other protestants who doubt this doctrine and as I stated earlier there are different versions of this doctrine that are taught so one may be doubting one way the doctrine is taught versus another.

People like to argue and debate. It is human nature but Paul warned about all the debatin and arguing.

Paul preached Jesus and him crucified and I think we all should take a lesson from Paul and quit condemning people to Hell over doctrinal differences.

 

Jehovah = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

(1 John 5:7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one (Jehovah).

Here is some good teaching from John Gill:

(Ex. 33:14) And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

presence = paniym (pl.)

Paniym is plural and can also mean person, hence, persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

(Gen 1:1)

GOD = elohiym (pl.)

Isn't it odd all these references to the name of God are plural?

[ March 29, 2002, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Sovereign Grace ]

 

We see in the Book of Genesis where God says Let us make man in our image. The Hebrew Elohim is plural at times but does that plurality denote persons or attributes. The King JAmes version was written by men who spoke of themselves in pluralities. King and Queens throughout history called themselves WE or Us or use the pronoun our but there was only one King or one Queen. This is called Royal venacular.

One of the arguments that Oneness use is why did God not reveal himself as a Trinity to his people Israel. Why did the belief of three persons in the Godhead not be taught until after the deaths of the Apostles? Also why until the 80's forward was Matthew 28:19 and I John 5:7 the Words Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or Father, Word, Holy Ghost in italics which denotes not in original transcripts.

There has been much debate on the plurality of the name Elohim and why the teaching of the Trinity only came to being after 300 a.d. and why did not God reveal himself as such to Moses or Abraham or the prophets. Why was Tertullian the first to receive this great revelation?

In the Old TEstament it states that Moses and the Elders of Israel saw God sitting on his throne so how does this coincide with what Jesus said that no man had seen the Father at anytime. Even Isaiah saw God sitting high and on his throne.
It does not notate thrones but throne.

Some teach that the Father, son and Holy spirit were all spirit beings until the Son entered human flesh at Bethlehem. Also we must note that Isaiah wrote that Elohim or Jehovah created all the World but John wrote that through Jesus all things were created.

Isaiah writing of Jesus called him The everlasting Father which has caused much debate and controversy.

 

hrhema - I'm familiar with Southwest Baptist in OKC, but not Northwest Baptist. Where are y'all located? Got a web site?

Please feel free to e-mail or private message me with the response.

 

Daniel and David knew.

(Ps. 110:1) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

(Dan. 7:13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

The Apostles taught the doctrine of the Trinity.

(2 Cor. 13:14) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

(Heb. 1:8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

(Heb. 1:10) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

The Father speaking to the Son? Jehovah (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) created the earth.

They saw Jesus. Jesus is the express image of God (Heb 1:3). God is Spirit (John 4:24), therefore He has no form.

[ March 29, 2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Sovereign Grace ]

 

Psalms 110: 1 Does not prove the Trinity. It proves two but not three. Nor does Daniel 7:13.
Also neither does 2 Cor 13:14. It states the Love of God in the middle but is not Jesus and the Holy Ghost God so this scripture does not name the Father.

Heb 1:8 again speaks of two not three.

The only two scriptures that are used again is Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 but there are debates concerning these scriptures legitimacy.
Not that they existed but what the original language stated.

As a previous person stated that the Father has no shape nor form this goes against the Nicene Creed which states THREE PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD.
Not personalities but PERSONS.

One of the pioneers of the Oneness movement declared that he personally cannot refrain from believing that there is a plurality in God's mysterious being and that this plurality is shown as a three-ness, not three separate, distinct beings or persons, but a mysterious, inexplicable, incomprehensible three-ness. Another stated the size of God being what it is, and the multi-intelligence that he possesses...
indicate that there is a vast internal communication within God. The intercession of the Spirit within believers indicates some form of communication.

The oneness theologians do not buy into some of the theory that Matthew 28:19 was interpreted wrong. They have no problem with this scripture because it does denote a singular name is supposed to be used so they declare that defends their case.

Am I defending their view point. No. My point is that men have fought wars and have murdered innocent people over creeds and doctrines and if they would just be Christ centered and preached the gospel some of Christianity's past would not be so bloody.

Again as I stated earlier there are different views of how the Trinity works. The Nicene creed says Three persons. Others teach personalities.
Some even teach the existence of the Father and
the Holy Spirit as spirit beings not physical beings with Jesus being the only physical being.
So who is right and who is wrong?

So should we judge the Oneness people and say they are not Christian. I don't think so.
A lot of their beliefs may be misguided but it does not mean they will be lost.

 

Your position denies progressive revelation and redemptive history. To deny the Trinity, who is the ONE eternal God, is to deny God. To misunderstand the trinity is one thing; to deny the character and traits of God when they are revealed is quite another.

 

I've not judged anyone by simply defending my belief of the trinity, nor would I ever kill anyone over it...I'll leave the killing up to the Roman Catholic Church because they seem to do it so nicely and completely all by themselves.

http://members.aol.com/hisbygrace2/bk1-ch27.html

Click on the link above to read John Gill on the doctrine of the trinity. This is a very informative article.

[ March 30, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Sovereign Grace ]

 

hrhema - please see the post I left for you at the bottom of page 2.

 

To deny the Trinity denies God? Does our salvation lie in our belief in the Trinity or whatever. I don't think so. Our salvation lies in belief in Jesus Christ and the fact that he died and he rose again. It lies in the fact that he sacrificed his life for you and me and that is the bottom line. Not what a person believes doctrinally.

Does God need mere humans to defend who he is I don't think so.

As far as pointing fingers at the Roman Catholic Church I am afraid there needs to be a good history lesson here because the Roman Catholic Church is not the only ones who persecuted others for their doctrinal beliefs. In every denominations history including the Baptists there have been people who have murdered others for their docttrinal beliefs. Does that scar the entire denomination or group. No. I have literally seen years ago when I was in school that a group of kids whether Baptist or Methodist or Catholic or Whatever would literally beat up other kids who were of different beliefs.

Again I don't defend their beliefs but Jesus said we are not to judge. He did not leave any room for making exceptions. That is his job not mine or yours. Everyone has their own mind to believe what they want to believe. There again are different views on the trinity and there are thousands of people who believe these views
and I think God instructs us to love every one even in their error.

There are thousands of people heading for Hell and that should be the churchs' number one focus first and foremost.