 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Looking for a concise description of the doctrine of the Trinity |
bonnie knox |
I know a nice young man who is in discussions with some Oneness people. He has lots of questions. The Oneness people seem pretty entrenched and adamant. I can't help wondering if their aim is persuasion, but I guess anyone would want to express their opinions.
So, I would like to know if there is a concise (say essay length) description that explains the whys and wherefores of the Trinity the way classical Pentecostals (or Baptists) believe it. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/12/16 5:02 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Christopher Stephenson |
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Thanks so much for the recommendations. I will probably buy at least one of those books for this young man. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/12/16 8:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking for a concise description of the doctrine of the Trinity |
Resident Skeptic |
| bonnie knox wrote: | I know a nice young man who is in discussions with some Oneness people. He has lots of questions. The Oneness people seem pretty entrenched and adamant. I can't help wondering if their aim is persuasion, but I guess anyone would want to express their opinions.
So, I would like to know if there is a concise (say essay length) description that explains the whys and wherefores of the Trinity the way classical Pentecostals (or Baptists) believe it. |
Why can't both parties accept that both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses? Both affirm there are distinctions within the being of God. Both affirm the deity of Christ. Where they differ is on how they approach the distinctions within God's being. But what usually happens is that both camps try to have debate instead of dialog often treating the other like they would a Mormon or JW.
_________________
"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
7/12/16 11:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
delete
_________________
"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
7/12/16 11:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking for a concise description of the doctrine of the Trinity |
Resident Skeptic |
Sorry. The book simply is not accurate. Much of what he says about Oneness Pentecostals can be said about Trinitariam Pentecostals. I hope Bonnie will not use this book.
AN ANSWER TO A CRITIC
By David K. Bernard
(Review of Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 234 pp.)
This book is the first on Oneness Pentecostalism to be offered by a major publisher. The movement's size and historical significance certainly merit a scholarly analysis. This work makes only a modest contribution to an understanding of the movement, however, due to it's polemical nature.
The author discloses that at age sixteen he was converted from a life of sin to the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), and he embraced Oneness doctrine. Shortly thereafter he began to question some UPCI teachings. In college, his study of church history convinced him that the Oneness was erroneous, and he left the UPCI at age twenty. Eventually he became a minister with the United Church of Christ.
The stated purpose of his book is to affirm the third-century doctrine of the trinity and to combat Oneness Pentecostalism. The book concludes that the Oneness view is a "heresy" and "sub-Christian," and indicates that the UPCI may even be a cult.
The author states the basic Oneness doctrine clearly and fairly, using representative Oneness sources. Unlike past attacks by men such as Carl Brumbach and Jimmy Swaggart, this book does not misrepresent basic Oneness views or make the erroneous charges of Arianism. Moreover, the author excludes a number of popular Trinitarian arguments that do not have scholarly validity. This section of the book provides a service by giving readers a generally accurate overview of the Oneness doctrine, although they could easily investigate the primary works for themselves.
In refuting Oneness, Boyd presents standard Trinitarian arguments, particularly those of Thomas Aquinas. His biblical points are not new; they are addressed in Oneness works such as The Oneness of God (1983). Boyd relies heavily upon ancient church history and philosophical reasoning to prove that Trinitarianism is both correct and necessary. He does not utilize, however, the extensive analysis and reflection of significant theologians in this century. He devotes a chapter to asserting that the early postapostolic writers were Trinitarian, but curiously, he does not interact with the most extensive Oneness work on the subject, Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300 (1991), although a copy was available to him. He revives arguments against the ancient modalists -- such as the allegation that they had an abstract, impersonal view of God -- that do not appear to be relevant to modern Oneness.
Perhaps the strongest chapter of the book is the presentation of scriptural passages that distinguish between the Father and Jesus. This chapter relies on biblical argument, which is the only valid basis for establishing doctrinal truth. This section could help some Oneness believers develop more well-rounded terminology and thought by causing them to consider more seriously the Sonship of Jesus. Yet Boyd does not seem to realize that a distinction between the Father and the Son (not of eternal personhood, but relative to the Incarnation) is at the very core of Oneness theology, and he does not present the more recent, full-orbed discussion of Oneness authors on this subject.
On other subjects, the author makes a number of unsubstantiated, erroneous, and inflammatory charges. For example, he accuses the UPCI of "teaching salvation-by-works to an extent almost unparalleled in the history of Christianity," of teaching "baptismal regeneration," of teaching that a person must be "salvation-worthy" and must "purify" himself to receive the Holy Spirit, of being the "most legalistic 'Christian' movement in church history," of believing that no one holding a Trinitarian view is saved.
What prompts these charges is the UPCI's teaching that repentance, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit constitute the "Bible standard of full salvation," and the UPCI's advocacy of practical holiness teachings such as modesty of dress and women's having long hair.
On these issues the author's bias, limited UPCI experience, and limited research handicap him. He does not interact with major UPCI works on these subjects, such as The New Birth (1984) and Practical Holiness: A Second Look (1985), that expressly refute salvation by works, baptismal regeneration, and legalism. Instead he relies on anecdotal examples, secondary works, and unofficial sources, many of which clearly do not reflect standard UPCI views or practices.
In trying to establish that the UPCI is grossly aberrant on these issues, he does not consider historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary. He does not seem to realize that the UPCI's view of the role of water baptism corresponds closely to that of the first five centuries of Christendom, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Lutheran Church. He does not consider contemporary works by significant evangelical and charismatic writers, such as Larry Christenson, Kilian McDonnell, James Dunn, and David Pawson, that speak of water baptism and Spirit baptism as part of Christian initiation. And most of his arguments against the baptism of the Holy Spirit would apply to the Pentecostal movement generally.
Boyd does not recognize that the holiness standards taught by the UPCI have been advocated by many ancient writers, Anabaptists, Quakers, Methodists, Holiness groups, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Trinitarian Pentecostals. For example, he states that "neither the early church, nor the church throughout the ages, has ever held to the very eccentric notion that a woman should never cut her hair." As Practical Holiness documents, however, advocates of women's keeping their hair long, based on 1 Corinthians 11, include Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, and, earlier in this century, most of the groups mentioned above.
The author clinches his argument by attempting to show that Oneness believers inevitably and almost unconsciously think in Trinitarian categories. This assertion seems to undercut his attempt to classify them as heretics or worse, but it does point the way to a more fruitful analysis. That is, if Oneness believers typically express themselves in ways that at least some Trinitarians find to be functionally Trinitarian, is there more common ground than one might suppose from the tone of this book?
Instead of focusing on philosophical arguments, historical opinions, creedal formulations, nonbiblical terminology, and derogatory labels, perhaps Oneness and Trinitarian theologians could profit from a dialogue that could erase some misconceptions, correct some mutual imbalances, and encourage greater attention to a more strictly biblical theology. The difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism is more than semntics, yet those who share common spiritual experiences and values may also find some surprising commonalities of thought as well.
(This book review has been submitted for publication in an issue of Pneuma, the journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, and has since appeared in that magazine)
_________________
"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
7/12/16 11:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking for a concise description of the doctrine of the Trinity |
bonnie knox |
As you might have surmised, the nice young man is my son. As far as I know, he is not engaging in debates, just asking questions. The Oneness adherents have invited him to lunch a few times and have had long discussions with him. They attend our church and love the fellowship. They weren't sure at first whether our church was Trinitarian, but when they asked in Sunday school, I and another person answered simultaneously that we are. After Sunday school, I mentioned that I didn't think our pastor would be open to beliefs other than Trinitarianism, and the woman assured me that it wasn't like she would be trying to teach that in our church.
After one Sunday lunch my son had with them, I asked him what they talked about. He said, "The Trinity." (for an hour)
I said, "What?! Are they trying to proselytize you?"
He grinned and said that she had told him, "You better not tell your mom or she will think we are trying to proselytize you."
So, yeah, I do wonder why they can't just live and let live, but in fairness, my son said he was asking questions.
My son is an easy going, fairly level headed kid. If he has a viewpoint, he will make his point and move on. I've not noticed him trying to persuade someone who doesn't want to change his or her mind. And I can't see him arguing about the nature of the Trinity.
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | I know a nice young man who is in discussions with some Oneness people. He has lots of questions. The Oneness people seem pretty entrenched and adamant. I can't help wondering if their aim is persuasion, but I guess anyone would want to express their opinions.
So, I would like to know if there is a concise (say essay length) description that explains the whys and wherefores of the Trinity the way classical Pentecostals (or Baptists) believe it. |
Why can't both parties accept that both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses? Both affirm there are distinctions within the being of God. Both affirm the deity of Christ. Where they differ is on how they approach the distinctions within God's being. But what usually happens is that both camps try to have debate instead of dialog often treating the other like they would a Mormon or JW. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/13/16 8:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking for a concise description of the doctrine of the Trinity |
Resident Skeptic |
| bonnie knox wrote: | As you might have surmised, the nice young man is my son. As far as I know, he is not engaging in debates, just asking questions. The Oneness adherents have invited him to lunch a few times and have had long discussions with him. They attend our church and love the fellowship. They weren't sure at first whether our church was Trinitarian, but when they asked in Sunday school, I and another person answered simultaneously that we are. After Sunday school, I mentioned that I didn't think our pastor would be open to beliefs other than Trinitarianism, and the woman assured me that it wasn't like she would be trying to teach that in our church.
After one Sunday lunch my son had with them, I asked him what they talked about. He said, "The Trinity." (for an hour)
I said, "What?! Are they trying to proselytize you?"
He grinned and said that she had told him, "You better not tell your mom or she will think we are trying to proselytize you."
So, yeah, I do wonder why they can't just live and let live, but in fairness, my son said he was asking questions.
My son is an easy going, fairly level headed kid. If he has a viewpoint, he will make his point and move on. I've not noticed him trying to persuade someone who doesn't want to change his or her mind. And I can't see him arguing about the nature of the Trinity.
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | I know a nice young man who is in discussions with some Oneness people. He has lots of questions. The Oneness people seem pretty entrenched and adamant. I can't help wondering if their aim is persuasion, but I guess anyone would want to express their opinions.
So, I would like to know if there is a concise (say essay length) description that explains the whys and wherefores of the Trinity the way classical Pentecostals (or Baptists) believe it. |
Why can't both parties accept that both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses? Both affirm there are distinctions within the being of God. Both affirm the deity of Christ. Where they differ is on how they approach the distinctions within God's being. But what usually happens is that both camps try to have debate instead of dialog often treating the other like they would a Mormon or JW. |
|
I hope these Oneness folk are not trying to proselytize. That was more common (by a minority of stalwarts) in years past but is not so common any more. One word of advise though.....Please have your son stress to them that Trinitarians do believe that God is a singular BEING and not a "body" as the AoG has started saying in recent years. Suggest also that your son respectfully point out that the Oneness position does not deny that there are distinctions within God, yet remains adamant that God is only one being. What usually happens is both sides misrepresent the other, both parties become defensive, and nothing is accomplished.
_________________
"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
7/13/16 10:06 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
In my experience (which I admit is by no means necessarily universally representative, though I'm certainly not the only one who has experienced this), Oneness folks consider it their mission to convert trinitarians to their view, with most seeing trinitarianism as 'idolatry' and trinitarians as not even saved, but instead, "three-god devils." Another thing they typically do is appeal to personal revelation ultimately, saying things like, "You can't get this by studying the Bible alone; the Spirit has to reveal it to you."
I wish the above were not the case, but the basic Oneness viewpoint has always been that they have a revelation superior to (supposedly the original, 'Apostolic' revelation of the New Testament Church) historic trinitarianism concerning the nature of God. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/13/16 10:32 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Please have your son stress to them that Trinitarians do believe that God is a singular BEING and not a "body" as the AoG has started saying in recent years. Suggest also that your son respectfully point out that the Oneness position does not deny that there are distinctions within God, yet remains adamant that God is only one being. What usually happens is both sides misrepresent the other, both parties become defensive, and nothing is accomplished. |
Why would I tell my son to stress to them anything?
I'm not interested in telling my adult son what to say in a situation like this.
Just not how we roll. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/13/16 10:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Please have your son stress to them that Trinitarians do believe that God is a singular BEING and not a "body" as the AoG has started saying in recent years. Suggest also that your son respectfully point out that the Oneness position does not deny that there are distinctions within God, yet remains adamant that God is only one being. What usually happens is both sides misrepresent the other, both parties become defensive, and nothing is accomplished. |
Why would I tell my son to stress to them anything?
I'm not interested in telling my adult son what to say in a situation like this.
Just not how we roll. |
I'm sorry. I thought it was your son you were trying to find info for on how to deal with these people. Since I am sort of a "hybrid" of the two camps, I thought perhaps my insights could be helpful. I humbly apologize if I was being presumptuous.
_________________
"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
7/13/16 10:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| The doctrine of the Trinity results from thoughtful reflection on the nature of the one true God as revealed in Scripture. Revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each having the attributes of personhood (mind, will and emotions), as well as interactivity amongst each other (The Son prays to the Father, the Father speaks to the Son, the Son speaks of the Spirit as "another Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name," etc.), and yet the Scriptures plainly teach there is but one God. In Christian theology, this has historically been described by the word, "trinity," which means a threefold unity, a three-in-one God. The Oneness view, in seeking to defend the unity of God against perceived tritheism, essentially negates the individual personhood of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Indeed, one thing Oneness folks most object to is the trinitarian phrase, "One God in three persons," insisting instead upon saying, "One God in three manifestations" or "in three offices," which is nothing other than modalism. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/13/16 10:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I thought it was your son you were trying to find info for on how to deal with these people. |
You got the first half right (trying to find info for my son). And I specified in the op what kind of info.
The info is for my son's questions, not on how to 'deal with these people.' |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/13/16 10:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each having the attributes of personhood (mind, will and emotions), |
Do you think "will" is an attribute of personhood rather than of the "nature" of God? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/13/16 11:01 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | The doctrine of the Trinity results from thoughtful reflection on the nature of the one true God as revealed in Scripture. Revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each having the attributes of personhood (mind, will and emotions), as well as interactivity amongst each other (The Son prays to the Father, the Father speaks to the Son, the Son speaks of the Spirit as "another Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name," etc.), and yet the Scriptures plainly teach there is but one God. In Christian theology, this has historically been described by the word, "trinity," which means a threefold unity, a three-in-one God. The Oneness view, in seeking to defend the unity of God against perceived tritheism, essentially negates the individual personhood of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Indeed, one thing Oneness folks most object to is the trinitarian phrase, "One God in three persons," insisting instead upon saying, "One God in three manifestations" or "in three offices," which is nothing other than modalism. |
I think where Trinitarians messed up is believing there was some sort of "fellowship, dialog, exchange, loving relationship" going on within the being of God from eternity past. Even when I was in the AoG I never believed that. God is complete within himself and requires no human style communication or emotional exchange from within himself or from outside sources. What has created this false perception of God is the exchange we see from the HUMAN Son of God, who as a limited human being, communicated with God through those human limitations. In his pre-incarnate state as "the Word", he operated IN God as God's self expression (theophanies) and did not require any such communication. Prior to the incarnation he was not limited to time as space as a human son. In his glorified state currently, such communication between the Son and God is also unnecessary. The Father completely exists through and mediates himself to us through his outward expression who was the Word in the Old Testament, manifest to us as the Son in the New Testament.
_________________
"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
7/13/16 11:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Looking for a concise description of the doctrine of the Trinity |
caseyleejones |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | I know a nice young man who is in discussions with some Oneness people. He has lots of questions. The Oneness people seem pretty entrenched and adamant. I can't help wondering if their aim is persuasion, but I guess anyone would want to express their opinions.
So, I would like to know if there is a concise (say essay length) description that explains the whys and wherefores of the Trinity the way classical Pentecostals (or Baptists) believe it. |
Why can't both parties accept that both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses? Both affirm there are distinctions within the being of God. Both affirm the deity of Christ. Where they differ is on how they approach the distinctions within God's being. But what usually happens is that both camps try to have debate instead of dialog often treating the other like they would a Mormon or JW. |
That is me. Oneness people are my brothers and sisters. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11798
7/13/16 11:18 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Well where to begin |
brotherjames |
As a leader in the AG (not AoG), I feel compelled to respond as our fellowship has been somewhat maligned in this thread by some who have not characterized our beliefs correctly. In addition, as our Fellowship was ripped apart by the Oneness heresy back in the 20's and 30's and I have studied the case in some depth. You must understand that to the AG oneness churches (UPC) et al are considered or up until quite recently have been considered a cult, similar to Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. I would be hesitant to have my child involved in a cult, good people notwithstanding. Can't we all get along seems to be the cry of the day but just ask OTCP if doctrine matters. It does. Btw the AG does not teach God the Father is a body. Our articles of faith quite clearly delineate our beliefs, I post them here for clarity as they were written in response to the OneNess issue in the first place.
2. The One True God
The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent "I AM," the Creator of heaven and earth and the Redeemer of mankind. He has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 6:4 [KJV/NIV]
Isaiah 43:10,11 [KJV/NIV]
Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 3:22 [KJV/NIV]
The Adorable Godhead
a. Terms Defined
The terms "Trinity" and "persons" as related to the Godhead, while not found in the Scriptures, are words in harmony with Scripture, whereby we may convey to others our immediate understanding of the doctrine of Christ respecting the Being of God, as distinguished from "gods many and lords many." We therefore may speak with propriety of the Lord our God who is One Lord, as a trinity or as one Being of three persons, and still be absolutely scriptural.
Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
2 Corinthians 13:14 [KJV/NIV]
John 14:16-17 [KJV/NIV]
b. Distinction and Relationship in the Godhead
Christ taught a distinction of Persons in the Godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained.
Luke 1:35 [KJV/NIV]
1 Corinthians 1:24 [KJV/NIV]
Matthew 11:25-27 [KJV/NIV]
Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
2 Corinthians 13:14 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 1:3-4 [KJV/NIV])
c. Unity of the One Being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Accordingly, therefore, there is that in the Father which constitutes him the Father and not the Son; there is that in the Son which constitutes Him the Son and not the Father; and there is that in the Holy Spirit which constitutes Him the Holy Spirit and not either the Father or the Son. Wherefore the Father is the Begetter, the Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit is the one proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore, because these three persons in the Godhead are in a state of unity, there is but one Lord God Almighty and His name one.
John 1:18 [KJV/NIV]
John 15:26 [KJV/NIV]
John 17:11 [KJV/NIV]
John 17:21 [KJV/NIV]
Zechariah 14:9 [KJV/NIV]
d. Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are never identical as to Person; nor confused as to relation; nor divided in respect to the Godhead; nor opposed as to cooperation. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son as to relationship. The Son is with the Father and the Father is with the Son, as to fellowship. The Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father, as to authority. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son proceeding, as to nature, relationship, cooperation and authority. Hence, neither Person in the Godhead either exists or works separately or independently of the others.
John 5:17-30 [KJV/NIV]
John 5:32 [KJV/NIV]
John 5:37 [KJV/NIV]
John 8:17,18 [KJV/NIV]
e. The Title, Lord Jesus Christ
The appellation, "Lord Jesus Christ," is a proper name. It is never applied in the New Testament, either to the Father or to the Holy Spirit. It therefore belongs exclusively to the Son of God.
Romans 1:1-3 [KJV/NIV]
2 John 1:3 [KJV/NIV
f. The Lord Jesus Christ, God with Us
The Lord Jesus Christ, as to His divine and eternal nature, is the proper and only Begotten of the Father, but as to His human nature, He is the proper Son of Man. He is therefore, acknowledged to be both God and man; who because He is God and man is "Immanuel," God with us.
Matthew 1:23 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:2 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:10 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:14 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 1:13 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 1:17 [KJV/NIV]
g. The Title, Son of God
Since the name "Immanuel" embraces both God and man in the one Person, our Lord Jesus Christ, it follows that the title, Son of God, describes His proper deity, and the title, Son of Man, His proper humanity. Therefore, the title Son of God, belongs to the order of eternity, and the title, Son of Man, to the order of time.
Matthew 1:21-23 [KJV/NIV]
2 John 1:3 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 3:8 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 7:3 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 1:1-13 [KJV/NIV]
h. Transgression of the Doctrine of Christ
Wherefore, it is a transgression of the Doctrine of Christ to say that Jesus Christ derived the title, Son of God, solely from the fact of the incarnation, or because of His relation to the economy of redemption. Therefore, to deny that the Father is a real and eternal Father, and that the Son is a real and eternal Son, is a denial of the distinction and relationship in the Being of God; a denial of the Father, and the Son; and a displacement of the truth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
2 John 1:9 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:1 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:2 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:14 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:18 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:29 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:49 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 2:22,23 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:1-5 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 12:2 [KJV/NIV]
i. Exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord
The Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, having by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; angels and principalities and powers having been made subject unto Him. And having been made both Lord and Christ, He sent the Holy Spirit that we, in the name of Jesus, might bow our knees and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father until the end, when the Son shall become subject to the Father that God may be all in all.
Hebrews 1:3 [KJV/NIV]
1 Peter 3:22 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 2:32-36 [KJV/NIV]
Romans 14:11 [KJV/NIV]
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 [KJV/NIV]
j. Equal Honor to the Father and to the Son
Wherefore, since the Father has delivered all judgment unto the Son, it is not only the express duty of all in heaven and on earth to bow the knee, but it is an unspeakable joy in the Holy Spirit to ascribe unto the Son all the attributes of Deity, and to give Him all honor and the glory contained in all the names and titles of the Godhead except those which express relationship (see Distinction and Relationship in the Godhead, Unity of the One Being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit , and Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead) and thus honor the Son even as we honor the Father.
John 5:22,23 [KJV/NIV]
1 Peter 1:8 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 5:6-14 [KJV/NIV]
Philippians 2:8,9 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 7:9-10 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 4:8-11 [KJV/NIV]
(TOP)
3. The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. The Scriptures declare:
His virgin birth,
Matthew 1:23 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 1:31 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 1:35 [KJV/NIV]
His sinless life,
Hebrews 7:26 [KJV/NIV]
1 Peter 2:22 [KJV/NIV]
His miracles,
Acts 2:22 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 10:38 [KJV/NIV]
His substitutionary work on the cross,
1 Corinthians 15:3 [KJV/NIV]
2 Corinthians 5:21 [KJV/NIV]
His bodily resurrection from the dead,
Matthew 28:6 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 24:39 [KJV/NIV]
1 Corinthians 15:4 [KJV/NIV]
His exaltation to the right hand of God.
Acts 1:9 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 1:11 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 2:33 [KJV/NIV]
Philippians 2:9-11 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 1:3 [KJV/NIV] |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
7/13/16 11:40 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Well where to begin |
Resident Skeptic |
| brotherjames wrote: | As a leader in the AG (not AoG), I feel compelled to respond as our fellowship has been somewhat maligned in this thread by some who have not characterized our beliefs correctly. In addition, as our Fellowship was ripped apart by the Oneness heresy back in the 20's and 30's and I have studied the case in some depth. You must understand that to the AG oneness churches (UPC) et al are considered or up until quite recently have been considered a cult, similar to Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. I would be hesitant to have my child involved in a cult, good people notwithstanding. Can't we all get along seems to be the cry of the day but just ask OTCP if doctrine matters. It does. Btw the AG does not teach God the Father is a body. Our articles of faith quite clearly delineate our beliefs, I post them here for clarity as they were written in response to the OneNess issue in the first place.
2. The One True God
The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent "I AM," the Creator of heaven and earth and the Redeemer of mankind. He has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 6:4 [KJV/NIV]
Isaiah 43:10,11 [KJV/NIV]
Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 3:22 [KJV/NIV]
The Adorable Godhead
a. Terms Defined
The terms "Trinity" and "persons" as related to the Godhead, while not found in the Scriptures, are words in harmony with Scripture, whereby we may convey to others our immediate understanding of the doctrine of Christ respecting the Being of God, as distinguished from "gods many and lords many." We therefore may speak with propriety of the Lord our God who is One Lord, as a trinity or as one Being of three persons, and still be absolutely scriptural.
Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
2 Corinthians 13:14 [KJV/NIV]
John 14:16-17 [KJV/NIV]
b. Distinction and Relationship in the Godhead
Christ taught a distinction of Persons in the Godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained.
Luke 1:35 [KJV/NIV]
1 Corinthians 1:24 [KJV/NIV]
Matthew 11:25-27 [KJV/NIV]
Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
2 Corinthians 13:14 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 1:3-4 [KJV/NIV])
c. Unity of the One Being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Accordingly, therefore, there is that in the Father which constitutes him the Father and not the Son; there is that in the Son which constitutes Him the Son and not the Father; and there is that in the Holy Spirit which constitutes Him the Holy Spirit and not either the Father or the Son. Wherefore the Father is the Begetter, the Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit is the one proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore, because these three persons in the Godhead are in a state of unity, there is but one Lord God Almighty and His name one.
John 1:18 [KJV/NIV]
John 15:26 [KJV/NIV]
John 17:11 [KJV/NIV]
John 17:21 [KJV/NIV]
Zechariah 14:9 [KJV/NIV]
d. Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are never identical as to Person; nor confused as to relation; nor divided in respect to the Godhead; nor opposed as to cooperation. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son as to relationship. The Son is with the Father and the Father is with the Son, as to fellowship. The Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father, as to authority. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son proceeding, as to nature, relationship, cooperation and authority. Hence, neither Person in the Godhead either exists or works separately or independently of the others.
John 5:17-30 [KJV/NIV]
John 5:32 [KJV/NIV]
John 5:37 [KJV/NIV]
John 8:17,18 [KJV/NIV]
e. The Title, Lord Jesus Christ
The appellation, "Lord Jesus Christ," is a proper name. It is never applied in the New Testament, either to the Father or to the Holy Spirit. It therefore belongs exclusively to the Son of God.
Romans 1:1-3 [KJV/NIV]
2 John 1:3 [KJV/NIV
f. The Lord Jesus Christ, God with Us
The Lord Jesus Christ, as to His divine and eternal nature, is the proper and only Begotten of the Father, but as to His human nature, He is the proper Son of Man. He is therefore, acknowledged to be both God and man; who because He is God and man is "Immanuel," God with us.
Matthew 1:23 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:2 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:10 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:14 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 1:13 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 1:17 [KJV/NIV]
g. The Title, Son of God
Since the name "Immanuel" embraces both God and man in the one Person, our Lord Jesus Christ, it follows that the title, Son of God, describes His proper deity, and the title, Son of Man, His proper humanity. Therefore, the title Son of God, belongs to the order of eternity, and the title, Son of Man, to the order of time.
Matthew 1:21-23 [KJV/NIV]
2 John 1:3 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 3:8 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 7:3 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 1:1-13 [KJV/NIV]
h. Transgression of the Doctrine of Christ
Wherefore, it is a transgression of the Doctrine of Christ to say that Jesus Christ derived the title, Son of God, solely from the fact of the incarnation, or because of His relation to the economy of redemption. Therefore, to deny that the Father is a real and eternal Father, and that the Son is a real and eternal Son, is a denial of the distinction and relationship in the Being of God; a denial of the Father, and the Son; and a displacement of the truth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
2 John 1:9 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:1 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:2 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:14 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:18 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:29 [KJV/NIV]
John 1:49 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 2:22,23 [KJV/NIV]
1 John 4:1-5 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 12:2 [KJV/NIV]
i. Exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord
The Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, having by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; angels and principalities and powers having been made subject unto Him. And having been made both Lord and Christ, He sent the Holy Spirit that we, in the name of Jesus, might bow our knees and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father until the end, when the Son shall become subject to the Father that God may be all in all.
Hebrews 1:3 [KJV/NIV]
1 Peter 3:22 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 2:32-36 [KJV/NIV]
Romans 14:11 [KJV/NIV]
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 [KJV/NIV]
j. Equal Honor to the Father and to the Son
Wherefore, since the Father has delivered all judgment unto the Son, it is not only the express duty of all in heaven and on earth to bow the knee, but it is an unspeakable joy in the Holy Spirit to ascribe unto the Son all the attributes of Deity, and to give Him all honor and the glory contained in all the names and titles of the Godhead except those which express relationship (see Distinction and Relationship in the Godhead, Unity of the One Being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit , and Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead) and thus honor the Son even as we honor the Father.
John 5:22,23 [KJV/NIV]
1 Peter 1:8 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 5:6-14 [KJV/NIV]
Philippians 2:8,9 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 7:9-10 [KJV/NIV]
Revelation 4:8-11 [KJV/NIV]
(TOP)
3. The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. The Scriptures declare:
His virgin birth,
Matthew 1:23 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 1:31 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 1:35 [KJV/NIV]
His sinless life,
Hebrews 7:26 [KJV/NIV]
1 Peter 2:22 [KJV/NIV]
His miracles,
Acts 2:22 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 10:38 [KJV/NIV]
His substitutionary work on the cross,
1 Corinthians 15:3 [KJV/NIV]
2 Corinthians 5:21 [KJV/NIV]
His bodily resurrection from the dead,
Matthew 28:6 [KJV/NIV]
Luke 24:39 [KJV/NIV]
1 Corinthians 15:4 [KJV/NIV]
His exaltation to the right hand of God.
Acts 1:9 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 1:11 [KJV/NIV]
Acts 2:33 [KJV/NIV]
Philippians 2:9-11 [KJV/NIV]
Hebrews 1:3 [KJV/NIV] |
I'm not sure how you feel the "AG" was falsely maligned in any way. Can you be more specific, please?
And like you, I was once one of those AG ministers who was very vocal in my dismissal of the Oneness Pentecostal movement as nothing more than a cult. I even went so far as to speculate that nobody was really receiving the Spirit baptism in those churches. My own years of serious study and interaction with those in their ranks lead me to a different conclusion. That is not to say I do not find great error within their ranks. But "error" is not always synonymous with "cultism".
Furthermore, if I stated that the AG said that "God the Father" was a body, I was mistaken. What I meant to say was that an official AG publication which I read just days ago emphatically stated that "the one God is a body".
_________________
"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
7/13/16 11:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie, there is no simple statement that squares with scripture... |
Aaron Scott |
If we go with the traditional statement of the trinity, it is seeming conflict with numerous scriptures.
If we go with non-traditional statements of the trinity (which I better align with), they, too, have issues.
Pretty much all we can really say--at least without conflict from the scriptures--is that there is ONE GOD...and Jesus is His Only Son...and that both are utterly divine (and the Holy Spirit fits into this in some way also).
Now, we already believe that, don't we? The problem is when we try to make it fit with the standard notion of the trinity. That's when we have to start "explaining" this and that verse, that is seemingly so at odds with what is going on (e.g., that Jesus HAS a God, that Jesus will become Subject to God, etc.).
The doctrine of the trinity is not a heaven or hell issue (unless you think aposotolic believers are going to hell), so I don't know why we pin so much on it, when we could and should simply say, "Anything beyond the words of the scriptures is conjecture--and cannot be considered absolute doctrine."
I know some feel very differently about that, but I am satisfied that my position is the right one, even if does get be smacked around a bit. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/13/16 12:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bonnie, there is no simple statement that squares with scripture... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | If we go with the traditional statement of the trinity, it is seeming conflict with numerous scriptures.
If we go with non-traditional statements of the trinity (which I better align with), they, too, have issues.
Pretty much all we can really say--at least without conflict from the scriptures--is that there is ONE GOD...and Jesus is His Only Son...and that both are utterly divine (and the Holy Spirit fits into this in some way also).
Now, we already believe that, don't we? The problem is when we try to make it fit with the standard notion of the trinity. That's when we have to start "explaining" this and that verse, that is seemingly so at odds with what is going on (e.g., that Jesus HAS a God, that Jesus will become Subject to God, etc.).
The doctrine of the trinity is not a heaven or hell issue (unless you think aposotolic believers are going to hell), so I don't know why we pin so much on it, when we could and should simply say, "Anything beyond the words of the scriptures is conjecture--and cannot be considered absolute doctrine."
I know some feel very differently about that, but I am satisfied that my position is the right one, even if does get be smacked around a bit. |
Good post.
What led me to the conclusion that God is not as fretful of this Godhead issue as we are was the "witness of the Spirit" I saw in the lives of Oneness believers. As a Trinitarian, this rocked my theological ship. I did not see this witness of the Spirit in Mormons or JW's simply because they do not even view the atonement and regeneration as we do. But God was testifying before my very eyes that he was claiming these "Oneness heretics" as his own! But Oneness stalwarts who believe all Trinitarians are lost must ask themselves as well why God bears witness to Trinitarians giving them the "like precious gift" which the Jerusalem council referred to as "repentance unto life"(Acts 11:18). Spiritual pride in both camps hinders from them from opening their minds and hearts to these types of questions.
_________________
"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
7/13/16 12:12 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
