 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Da Sheik |
| I know of a guy who's Baptist but likes to visit Oneness churches because he's looking for a woman who follows their dress code. He's really into the long hair and conservative dresses. I'm not making fun, just adding to the discussion. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1865
6/17/16 5:52 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: |
And lest we cast stones at the Pentecostals, might I remind you it hasn't been too many years ago we would have been shouting and dancing to the same tune, minus the Jesus Only references? Wait...what is that I hear? "The Church of God is right, hallelujah to the Lamb"... |
Only difference, Carolyn, is that "The Church of God IS Right."
As fer at Jesus Only, Oneness gang, they AINT right. |
But wouldn't it be just as wrong for us to glorify ourselves rather than the Lord? |
If in face we was glorifyin ourselves over God, yep, it would be faulty worship. The COG is Right BECAUSE it was birthed by God. So, to sing, The COG IS RIGHT, is givin praise/glory/honor to God. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
6/17/16 6:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | I did not know "Jesus Only" was considered a derogatory term. To me, it's the same as "Apostolic" or "Oneness". My apologies... |
It aint derogatory, Carolyn. Oneness folk know they are Jesus Only.
The following is not intended to be demeaning, RS, only a observation from your myriad posts regarding the subject.
The anomaly of Resident Skeptic is that he is internally conflicted over the Oneness position. He is not 100% Oneness, nor is he ready to fully embrace Trinitarianism. This leads to numerous statements, some of which of less than coherent. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
6/17/16 6:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
A dear friend of mine was raised with a very strict PH background. She was exposed to the Oneness doctrine in college through friends. She went through a period where she was very dogmatic about it, and we had very lengthy discussions about it. Neither of us would budge. She kind of separated herself from our church circle of friends for a while. When she returned after a period of time and a lot of thought and prayer, she said what the Lord spoke to her was, "I can be Three or I can be One." *shrugs* Not such a big issue anymore.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
6/17/16 7:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | | I did not know "Jesus Only" was considered a derogatory term. To me, it's the same as "Apostolic" or "Oneness". My apologies... |
It aint derogatory, Carolyn. Oneness folk know they are Jesus Only.
The following is not intended to be demeaning, RS, only a observation from your myriad posts regarding the subject.
The anomaly of Resident Skeptic is that he is internally conflicted over the Oneness position. He is not 100% Oneness, nor is he ready to fully embrace Trinitarianism. This leads to numerous statements, some of which of less than coherent. |
I came to the Lord in 1980 in A IPHC church. I was licensed in the AoG for many years and served as an associate in a Church of God for years. I have been around the block many times and having served God in both camps I feel I am much more qualified than you to speak about it, frankly.
The "Jesus Only" term in reference to our view of the Godhead head is a mistake at the least, a lie at worst. I have fully embraced the Oneness position. I did so in 1992. It is not a question of "not being ready to embrace the doctrine of the Trinity" as you claim. Been there, done that. On the same token, I do not embrace an "anti-Trinitarian " stand. either. The two doctrines have more similarities than differences. The Oneness doctrine better represents Biblical monotheism in my opinion.
If you would care to share any "incoherent" thing I've said, I'm ready to hear about it. But I already know you have not one thing in mind but are just blowing smoke. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why Jesus referred to the Father alone as the "one true God". I won't hold my breath.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
6/17/16 7:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | The "Jesus Only" term in reference to our view of the Godhead head is a mistake at the least, a lie at worst. I have fully embraced the Oneness position. I did so in 1992. It is not a question of "not being ready to embrace the doctrine of the Trinity" as you claim. Been there, done that. On the same token, I do not embrace an "anti-Trinitarian " stand. either. The two doctrines have more similarities than differences. The Oneness doctrine better represents Biblical monotheism in my opinion.
If you would care to share any "incoherent" thing I've said, I'm ready to hear about it. But I already know you have not one thing in mind but are just blowing smoke. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why Jesus referred to the Father alone as the "one true God". I won't hold my breath. |
Tonight, on me an momma's date night, I aint got the time or desire to engage a full-scale dialogue per Oneness theology. That said, my comments about incoherent comments was not intended to be derogatory, RS. Only that in trying to defend your position you often come across tryin to explain stuff what don't seem to be rational. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
6/17/16 8:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | The "Jesus Only" term in reference to our view of the Godhead head is a mistake at the least, a lie at worst. I have fully embraced the Oneness position. I did so in 1992. It is not a question of "not being ready to embrace the doctrine of the Trinity" as you claim. Been there, done that. On the same token, I do not embrace an "anti-Trinitarian " stand. either. The two doctrines have more similarities than differences. The Oneness doctrine better represents Biblical monotheism in my opinion.
If you would care to share any "incoherent" thing I've said, I'm ready to hear about it. But I already know you have not one thing in mind but are just blowing smoke. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why Jesus referred to the Father alone as the "one true God". I won't hold my breath. |
Tonight, on me an momma's date night, I aint got the time or desire to engage a full-scale dialogue per Oneness theology. That said, my comments about incoherent comments was not intended to be derogatory, RS. Only that in trying to defend your position you often come across tryin to explain stuff what don't seem to be rational. |
Until you can cite an example I really cannot take you seriously. If it is not rational to take Jesus at his word that the Father is the only one true God, then what is?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
6/17/16 9:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Until you can cite an example I really cannot take you seriously. If it is not rational to take Jesus at his word that the Father is the only one true God, then what is? |
In your sig line you quote a UPCI feller, Daniel Segraves, as sayin "It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." Yet Oneness Pentecostals continue to posit that Trinitarians believe in 3 gods. I've had them tell me that personally. My point is this, while you try to distance yourself from the excess of Oneness theology, you seem to embrace it. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
6/17/16 10:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Until you can cite an example I really cannot take you seriously. If it is not rational to take Jesus at his word that the Father is the only one true God, then what is? |
In your sig line you quote a UPCI feller, Daniel Segraves, as sayin "It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." Yet Oneness Pentecostals continue to posit that Trinitarians believe in 3 gods. I've had them tell me that personally. My point is this, while you try to distance yourself from the excess of Oneness theology, you seem to embrace it. |
Since I obviously do not embrace the idea that Trinitarians believe in 3 Gods, your point is invalid. What is my "excess"?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
6/17/16 11:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Until you can cite an example I really cannot take you seriously. If it is not rational to take Jesus at his word that the Father is the only one true God, then what is? |
In your sig line you quote a UPCI feller, Daniel Segraves, as sayin "It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." Yet Oneness Pentecostals continue to posit that Trinitarians believe in 3 gods. I've had them tell me that personally. My point is this, while you try to distance yourself from the excess of Oneness theology, you seem to embrace it. |
Since I obviously do not embrace the idea that Trinitarians believe in 3 Gods, your point is invalid. What is my "excess"? |
I think ya misunderstood the ole timer, RS. I said that you do try to distance yourself from the excess of Oneness theology, you do embrace components of it. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
6/18/16 12:13 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Until you can cite an example I really cannot take you seriously. If it is not rational to take Jesus at his word that the Father is the only one true God, then what is? |
In your sig line you quote a UPCI feller, Daniel Segraves, as sayin "It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." Yet Oneness Pentecostals continue to posit that Trinitarians believe in 3 gods. I've had them tell me that personally. My point is this, while you try to distance yourself from the excess of Oneness theology, you seem to embrace it. |
Since I obviously do not embrace the idea that Trinitarians believe in 3 Gods, your point is invalid. What is my "excess"? |
I think ya misunderstood the ole timer, RS. I said that you do try to distance yourself from the excess of Oneness theology, you do embrace components of it. |
Very true. I'm truly a hybrid.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
6/18/16 8:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Man defining the nature of God ... |
Mat |
Man defining the nature of God, even Christian theologians, is a problematic exercise. The simplicity of repentance and belief in Jesus Christ as Savior demonstrates God's complete understanding of fallen mankind's inability to define God.
That said, what these efforts to define the nature of God often give "birth" to are the historic "stumbling blocks" of unity in Christianity. Going back to the divide between Roman and Orthodox confessions/creeds we see the division these definitions create.
I will say I am troubled by an order of salvation that requires first repentance, than a "Jesus Name" water baptism, followed by an Holy Ghost Baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues as the "seal" of true salvation as the only way to be a Christian. Certainly the house of Cornelius, as well as Peter, got the order wrong.
Mat
It could be said that adherence to the name "Jesus" as the only legitimate Divine Name is as problematic for the "Oneness" as the adherence to the name "Jehovah" is for the Jehovah Witness. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
6/18/16 12:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Man defining the nature of God ... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Mat wrote: | Man defining the nature of God, even Christian theologians, is a problematic exercise. The simplicity of repentance and belief in Jesus Christ as Savior demonstrates God's complete understanding of fallen mankind's inability to define God.
That said, what these efforts to define the nature of God often give "birth" to are the historic "stumbling blocks" of unity in Christianity. Going back to the divide between Roman and Orthodox confessions/creeds we see the division these definitions create.
I will say I am troubled by an order of salvation that requires first repentance, than a "Jesus Name" water baptism, followed by an Holy Ghost Baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues as the "seal" of true salvation as the only way to be a Christian. Certainly the house of Cornelius, as well as Peter, got the order wrong.
Mat
It could be said that adherence to the name "Jesus" as the only legitimate Divine Name is as problematic for the "Oneness" as the adherence to the name "Jehovah" is for the Jehovah Witness. |
Let me share my thoughts on this...
Paul made it clear what saves us in Titus 3:5.....
| Quote: | | 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, |
What saves us? Washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Not repentance, not baptism...but regeneration by the Holy Spirit.
Repentance and water baptism are steps of faith towards the new birth. We normatively see repentance and baptism preceding the rebirth of the Spirit in Acts, Cornelius being the only exception. This demonstrates to me that while repentance and baptism are for (unto) the forgiveness of sins, neither produces any real cleansing of the inner man. Only the Spirit can do that. In other words, Cornelius would not have gone to hell had he dropped dead while walking to the baptistery.
The biggest difference I have with many Oneness adherents is that I do not think being baptized in the name of Jesus really has much to do with words being invoked over someone at baptism. Neither Matthew 28:19 or Acts 2:38 are meant to be "formulas" or instructions on what to invoke over a baptismal candidate. To be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is to be baptized into his authority and for his sake. It is where we surrender the vessel of our body to the one who purchased it with his blood to be God's habitation through the Spirit. While I firmly believe the name of Jesus was invoked by the Apostles in Acts while baptizing converts, our salvation does not hinge on the words said over us by the baptizer. One's sins cannot be cast out like a demon through invoking the name of Jesus.
The biggest difference I have with Evangelical Pentecostals is that I do not believe one receives the rebirth of the Spirit the instantly when they confess Christ. Some do. Some don't. Nor do I believe that the new birth of the Spirit is a separate act from the baptism in the Spirit. They are one and the same. One would be hard pressed to prove scripturally that they are separate acts.We are saved when we receive the Spirit. It is God's desire that all who receive the Spirit speak in tongues. Sadly, many miss out on that benefit, but it does not mean their hearts were not regenerated by the Spirit.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
6/18/16 12:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
