 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Is it semantics with no practical difference? |
Aaron Scott |
I believe that OSAS is of no PRACTICAL difference from standard free will. That is, both tend to believe that if you live like the devil, you aren't saved.
Now, it is given that when we are DEBATING the differences, we will twist the opposing position up into the most hellish doctrine known to man, birthed in the pits of hell. We will claim that OSAS teaches men they can live like the devil, forsake holiness, and still be saved....while the OSASers teach that we make a mockery of the blood of Jesus, etc.
You get the idea.
But what about oneness vs. the trinity? Oneness claims we believe in three gods (again, we are talking when we debate)...and we claim they are denying the deity of Christ (or some such nonsense meant to shut off debate).
In PRACTICE, we both agree that there is one God...that He shows up in three ways--even all at the same time....we may call those three ways three persons, three manifestations, three what have you's, but it is ultimately along the same lines.
I wonder how much time we've spent, blood we've spilled, fussing over what is, largely (if not entirely) semantics...when we are remarkably similar at the root of the matter? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/13/16 8:59 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| I have known many OSAS believers over the years who affirmed what OSAS plainly means--once saved, you remain saved no matter what you do or don't do. This is indeed the very core of what unconditional eternal security means. So it is absolutely not true that it doesn't matter. Good grief. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/13/16 10:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | No, for what these Scriptures say to be true, the Son of God voluntarily laid aside His position in Heaven for the sake of our salvation, and was about to be glorified fully again with His Father in heaven. |
Too vague. Was part of that "laying aside" forgetting who he was and his existence prior to becoming a man? This is a very valid point. |
I'm not sure what your reason is for bringing up such nonsequiturs, but in any case, I only affirm what the Scriptures affirm regarding Christ's deity and humanity. Philippians 2 indicates that He willingly chose to humble himself and become a man, to suffer obediently unto death, and is now exalted above every name because of it. |
Alright then. Let me ask you this way.
Was there ever a time after the incarnation that God the Son was not fully aware of who he was ? |
Hmmm...not sure where you're going with this, but in any case to answer that would be speculative at best. Even still, Jesus himself did say that He did not know when the day of His return would be, and the Scriptures say He grew in wisdom and in stature, so apparently the attribute of omniscience was laid aside in the Incarnation. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/13/16 10:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | No, for what these Scriptures say to be true, the Son of God voluntarily laid aside His position in Heaven for the sake of our salvation, and was about to be glorified fully again with His Father in heaven. |
Too vague. Was part of that "laying aside" forgetting who he was and his existence prior to becoming a man? This is a very valid point. |
I'm not sure what your reason is for bringing up such nonsequiturs, but in any case, I only affirm what the Scriptures affirm regarding Christ's deity and humanity. Philippians 2 indicates that He willingly chose to humble himself and become a man, to suffer obediently unto death, and is now exalted above every name because of it. |
Alright then. Let me ask you this way.
Was there ever a time after the incarnation that God the Son was not fully aware of who he was ? |
Hmmm...not sure where you're going with this, but in any case to answer that would be speculative at best. Even still, Jesus himself did say that He did not know when the day of His return would be, and the Scriptures say He grew in wisdom and in stature, so apparently the attribute of omniscience was laid aside in the Incarnation. |
Was self awareness laid aside in the incarnation?
_________________
"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 10:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Possible contradiction.... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | There is no Scripture that is contradicted by the trinity doctrine. Indeed, the doctrine of the trinity is a synthesis of what the Scriptures teach concerning God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are numerous scriptures that contradict modalism/oneness. |
One area of scripture that I think gives the trinity problems ( which are then promptly ignored and everyone who believes otherwise is called a heretic) is in Revelation when the resurrected and ascended Christ (i.e., He cannot be said to be in His incarnate form, etc.) speaks of "MY God."
It is difficult to reconcile that Jesus, being fully God, calls His Father "MY God." What is telling is that while we might have some trouble with the Son saying this of the Father, we would have theological nightmares if the FATHER spoke of someone being HIS God!
Can it be handled? Of course. Does the solution make good sense? Maybe or maybe not. If you are determined to insist that the doctrine of the trinity come out regardless of whether it abides with the scripture or not, then the doctrine is a foregone conclusion. Otherwise, you might have more ambiguity in your doctrine, yet closer fidelity to no more than what the scriptures state. I have concluded that pretty much all sides of the debate--oneness, trinity, Arianism--are sincere and love The Lord. Doesn't make them right, but perhaps there is some mitigation there. |
I often wonder how one person redeemed men to the other person. IK God is three persons, then why was one of those persons so important from the others that I had to be purchased only for him and not the other two?
| Quote: | 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
|
_________________
"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 10:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Is it semantics with no practical difference? |
Cojak |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I believe that OSAS is of no PRACTICAL difference from standard free will. That is, both tend to believe that if you live like the devil, you aren't saved.
Now, it is given that when we are DEBATING the differences, we will twist the opposing position up into the most hellish doctrine known to man, birthed in the pits of hell. We will claim that OSAS teaches men they can live like the devil, forsake holiness, and still be saved....while the OSASers teach that we make a mockery of the blood of Jesus, etc.
You get the idea.
But what about oneness vs. the trinity? Oneness claims we believe in three gods (again, we are talking when we debate)...and we claim they are denying the deity of Christ (or some such nonsense meant to shut off debate).
In PRACTICE, we both agree that there is one God...that He shows up in three ways--even all at the same time....we may call those three ways three persons, three manifestations, three what have you's, but it is ultimately along the same lines.
I wonder how much time we've spent, blood we've spilled, fussing over what is, largely (if not entirely) semantics...when we are remarkably similar at the root of the matter? |
I have had basically the same response from OSAS as you picture here.
I guess I am too liberal, I also feel this (one-ness and trinity) is not a hill to DIE on, nor to kill a brother/sister on. Every one has a 'good' argument for their point, using their logic, or we would all AGREE, but we don't. My brother RS, with whom I disagree many times, has made some good points, so have my brother 'Trinity' believers. BUT I have to think that we all must follow our conscience and beliefs. We also should allow all our brothers and sisters the same latitude. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
I get fearful when my brothers/sisters start explaining what God really meant in the scripture. I am so glad God doesn't have to spin, He knows the thoughts and 'intents' of my heart. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
7/13/16 10:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Is it semantics with no practical difference? |
Resident Skeptic |
| Cojak wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I believe that OSAS is of no PRACTICAL difference from standard free will. That is, both tend to believe that if you live like the devil, you aren't saved.
Now, it is given that when we are DEBATING the differences, we will twist the opposing position up into the most hellish doctrine known to man, birthed in the pits of hell. We will claim that OSAS teaches men they can live like the devil, forsake holiness, and still be saved....while the OSASers teach that we make a mockery of the blood of Jesus, etc.
You get the idea.
But what about oneness vs. the trinity? Oneness claims we believe in three gods (again, we are talking when we debate)...and we claim they are denying the deity of Christ (or some such nonsense meant to shut off debate).
In PRACTICE, we both agree that there is one God...that He shows up in three ways--even all at the same time....we may call those three ways three persons, three manifestations, three what have you's, but it is ultimately along the same lines.
I wonder how much time we've spent, blood we've spilled, fussing over what is, largely (if not entirely) semantics...when we are remarkably similar at the root of the matter? |
I have had basically the same response from OSAS as you picture here.
I guess I am too liberal, I also feel this (one-ness and trinity) is not a hill to DIE on, nor to kill a brother/sister on. Every one has a 'good' argument for their point, using their logic, or we would all AGREE, but we don't. My brother RS, with whom I disagree many times, has made some good points, so have my brother 'Trinity' believers. BUT I have to think that we all must follow our conscience and beliefs. We also should allow all our brothers and sisters the same latitude. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
I get fearful when my brothers/sisters start explaining what God really meant in the scripture. I am so glad God doesn't have to spin, He knows the thoughts and 'intents' of my heart. |
I basically agree with you. As I stated in a previous post on this thread, the witness f the Spirit shows us what God thinks about it.
_________________
"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 10:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
Here is how Trinitarian Christian scholar Emery Bancroft described it in his book Christian Theology, pages 87-88:
| Quote: | The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Spirit. The term Father designates that personal distinction in the divine nature in virtue of which God is related to the Son and, through the Son and the Spirit, to the church.
The Son is not God as such; for God is not only Son, but also Father and Holy Spirit. The Son designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father, and is sent by the Father to redeem the world, and with the Father sends the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not God as such; for God is not only Holy Spirit, but also Father and Son. The Holy Spirit designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father and the Son, and is sent by them to accomplish the work of renewing the ungodly and sanctifying the church. |
_________________
"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 10:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| QW... |
Aaron Scott |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | I have known many OSAS believers over the years who affirmed what OSAS plainly means--once saved, you remain saved no matter what you do or don't do. This is indeed the very core of what unconditional eternal security means. So it is absolutely not true that it doesn't matter. Good grief. |
I don't deny that there are extremes of the position. But I have met, I believe, only one OSASer who held it as you have seen it. Most I know would claim the person had never been saved at all iif the were living like the devil. Do we really want our own doctrine graded by its worst extremes? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/14/16 12:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Unconditional eternal security, if words mean anything, means precisely as it is stated.
When I attended a Southern Baptist university for three years, every last one of my drinking, womanizing frat buddies, who led me along with them into alcoholism, said that they were certain they were saved because it is unconditional eternal security they have. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/14/16 1:10 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | No, for what these Scriptures say to be true, the Son of God voluntarily laid aside His position in Heaven for the sake of our salvation, and was about to be glorified fully again with His Father in heaven. |
Too vague. Was part of that "laying aside" forgetting who he was and his existence prior to becoming a man? This is a very valid point. |
I'm not sure what your reason is for bringing up such nonsequiturs, but in any case, I only affirm what the Scriptures affirm regarding Christ's deity and humanity. Philippians 2 indicates that He willingly chose to humble himself and become a man, to suffer obediently unto death, and is now exalted above every name because of it. |
Alright then. Let me ask you this way.
Was there ever a time after the incarnation that God the Son was not fully aware of who he was ? |
Hmmm...not sure where you're going with this, but in any case to answer that would be speculative at best. Even still, Jesus himself did say that He did not know when the day of His return would be, and the Scriptures say He grew in wisdom and in stature, so apparently the attribute of omniscience was laid aside in the Incarnation. |
Was self awareness laid aside in the incarnation? |
Hmmm...well, if you can tell me how a newly fertilized embryo might be capable of self-awareness, I think your question could be definitively answerable. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/14/16 1:12 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | No, for what these Scriptures say to be true, the Son of God voluntarily laid aside His position in Heaven for the sake of our salvation, and was about to be glorified fully again with His Father in heaven. |
Too vague. Was part of that "laying aside" forgetting who he was and his existence prior to becoming a man? This is a very valid point. |
I'm not sure what your reason is for bringing up such nonsequiturs, but in any case, I only affirm what the Scriptures affirm regarding Christ's deity and humanity. Philippians 2 indicates that He willingly chose to humble himself and become a man, to suffer obediently unto death, and is now exalted above every name because of it. |
Alright then. Let me ask you this way.
Was there ever a time after the incarnation that God the Son was not fully aware of who he was ? |
Hmmm...not sure where you're going with this, but in any case to answer that would be speculative at best. Even still, Jesus himself did say that He did not know when the day of His return would be, and the Scriptures say He grew in wisdom and in stature, so apparently the attribute of omniscience was laid aside in the Incarnation. |
Was self awareness laid aside in the incarnation? |
Hmmm...well, if you can tell me how a newly fertilized embryo might be capable of self-awareness, I think your question could be definitively answerable. |
So we have this being..a "He"...and part of him (a part called the Son) lost self awareness? How can only part of God lose self awareness?
I'm not trying to cast doubt or be snide. I promise you. But when we start really analyzing this teaching, such questions are bound to come up. We shouldn't just brush them away. If we can't provide scriptural answers for them, should we teach them so dogmatically or at all?
_________________
"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
7/14/16 7:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| RS, I do not see how your line of questioning regarding the self-awareness of the Son of God would be any less problematic if the Oneness position were true. If anything, it would it would he all the more problematic. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
7/14/16 9:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | I have known many OSAS believers over the years who affirmed what OSAS plainly means--once saved, you remain saved no matter what you do or don't do. This is indeed the very core of what unconditional eternal security means. So it is absolutely not true that it doesn't matter. Good grief. |
Once agin, Ole Wyatt Earp's gun has shot straight. This is exactly what unconditional eternal security teaches. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
7/14/16 9:56 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | RS, I do not see how your line of questioning regarding the self-awareness of the Son of God would be any less problematic if the Oneness position were true. If anything, it would it would he all the more problematic. |
Not really, since the Oneness position does not believe that "God the Son" was incarnate.
Please scroll back to my previous post on this thread "A more believable story.."
_________________
"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
7/14/16 10:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I disagree |
Resident Skeptic |
| brotherjames wrote: | | Quote: | The Godhead - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons, existing in a unified form as one body. God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. He is revealed in the Bible. He is eternal, with no beginning and no end.
Jesus Christ was the human incarnation of God the Father. He was born of the virgin Mary. He lived a sinless life and died by crucifixion for the sins of the world. He was resurrected from the dead on the third day and exalted to heaven with God.
The Holy Spirit is the essence of God which moves among the people, touching believers here on Earth. |
While Jesus is IN the Godhead He is separate and distinct in person from the Father. They may be ONE as part of the Godhead but Jesus was NOT the human incarnation of the Father. he revealed the Father but He was the human incarnation of the SON, the second person of the Trinity. Your quote of this person as to the AG beliefs is in error and she is NOT a spokesman for the AG in any way shape or form that I am aware of and if she is, she misstated our beliefs.
I also take issue with the wording of the Godhead. They do NOT exist as ONE BODY - THe Trinity exists as Three Distinct Persons comprising a unique form called the Godhead - not a body. Semantics mean something. |
Thank you brother James for sharing your view. What I have observed over the years is that there is not one set view of the Trinity. We could ask 100 Evangelical ministers to describe the Trinity and we would get 100 different answers. Personally, i view the Oneness doctrine as just another Trinitarian viewpoint, much to the shock and horror of my friends in both camps.
While we are on this topic. Please tell me what you think of this view of the Trinity....
Here is how Trinitarian Christian scholar Emery Bancroft described it in his book Christian Theology, pages 87-88:
| Quote: | Quote:
The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Spirit. The term Father designates that personal distinction in the divine nature in virtue of which God is related to the Son and, through the Son and the Spirit, to the church.
The Son is not God as such; for God is not only Son, but also Father and Holy Spirit. The Son designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father, and is sent by the Father to redeem the world, and with the Father sends the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not God as such; for God is not only Holy Spirit, but also Father and Son. The Holy Spirit designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father and the Son, and is sent by them to accomplish the work of renewing the ungodly and sanctifying the church. |
Let me say also that I esteem the Assemblies of God highly and am proud to have served in that great fellowship. Sadly, I could no longer sign the affirmation statement in good conscience. Nor can I sign the UPCI affirmation statement. Thus I remain without a fellowship at the moment.
_________________
"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
7/14/16 8:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| Three in one, I think there is beauty in the ambiguity of the Trinity. In trying to describe the Trinity I have said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate but at the same time so much one that they can only be considered one God. The Trinity is a divine community in one God. Maybe that's not perfect and probably doesn't add much clarity. but maybe it helps. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
7/14/16 10:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Here is a better description of Oneness heresy |
brotherjames |
Actually they are merely espousing the ancient heresy of modality which merely means they believe in one God who expresses himself in different modes as needed. I guess when Jesus was baptized by John he was a ventriloquist. Here you are:
Oneness Pentecostals declare that the Godhead consists of only one Person and deny the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They maintain that the only real “person” in the Godhead is Jesus. Thus, they are often referred to as the “Jesus Only” Movement. They maintain that God exists in two modes, as the Father in heaven and as Jesus the Son on earth. Nevertheless, they are the same person, not two separate persons. The Holy Spirit is not regarded as a person at all, merely a manifestation of Jesus’ power or a synonym for Him. Several verses are quoted to establish this view such as Colossians 2:9 (NKJV), “For in Him (Jesus) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Oneness theologians would argue that if the Father and the Son were separate, then the Godhead could not fully dwell in Christ. They also look to Matthew 28:19 to affirm their views that Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize in the “name” (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is said to have two natures: human and divine. Thus, when He died, only His human nature died. Also, when Jesus prayed, it was His human nature praying to His divine nature – not to a separate Father in heaven. As mentioned, the Oneness Pentecostal view of God is similar to the ancient heresy of Modalism. Modalism is the belief that one God existed in time in three distinct modes of being: first as the Father in heaven; second, bodily as the Son on earth; and finally as the Holy Spirit.
The Bible indeed teaches the existence of only one God (Deut. 6:4). Nonetheless, historic Christianity maintains that the doctrine of the Trinity (or tri-unity of God) is taught in Scripture. The Bible teaches that the one God exists eternally in three separate and distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:9 does not teach that the totality of the Godhead was in the body of Jesus, but rather that Jesus embodied the totality of the divine nature and God is totally revealed in Him. If the Father and the Son are the same person, then the Oneness teachers have a difficult job explaining how the Father and the Son can love each other (See Matt. 3:17; 17:5; John 3:35; 5:20; 2 Pet. 1:17), talk to each other (see John 11:41-42; 12:28; 17:1-26), and know each other (see Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29).
Matthew 28:19 clearly reflects the Trinitarian concept that the “name” (authority and characteristics) of the one God is incorporated in the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2). (See the following verses affirming the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit: Luke 12:12; John 15:26; Acts 5:3-10; 13:2-4; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:7.) |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
7/15/16 9:56 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Sorry duplicate |
brotherjames |
| Delete |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
7/15/16 10:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Here is a better description of Oneness heresy |
Resident Skeptic |
| brotherjames wrote: | Actually they are merely espousing the ancient heresy of modality which merely means they believe in one God who expresses himself in different modes as needed. I guess when Jesus was baptized by John he was a ventriloquist. Here you are:
Oneness Pentecostals declare that the Godhead consists of only one Person and deny the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They maintain that the only real “person” in the Godhead is Jesus. Thus, they are often referred to as the “Jesus Only” Movement. They maintain that God exists in two modes, as the Father in heaven and as Jesus the Son on earth. Nevertheless, they are the same person, not two separate persons. The Holy Spirit is not regarded as a person at all, merely a manifestation of Jesus’ power or a synonym for Him. Several verses are quoted to establish this view such as Colossians 2:9 (NKJV), “For in Him (Jesus) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Oneness theologians would argue that if the Father and the Son were separate, then the Godhead could not fully dwell in Christ. They also look to Matthew 28:19 to affirm their views that Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize in the “name” (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is said to have two natures: human and divine. Thus, when He died, only His human nature died. Also, when Jesus prayed, it was His human nature praying to His divine nature – not to a separate Father in heaven. As mentioned, the Oneness Pentecostal view of God is similar to the ancient heresy of Modalism. Modalism is the belief that one God existed in time in three distinct modes of being: first as the Father in heaven; second, bodily as the Son on earth; and finally as the Holy Spirit.
The Bible indeed teaches the existence of only one God (Deut. 6:4). Nonetheless, historic Christianity maintains that the doctrine of the Trinity (or tri-unity of God) is taught in Scripture. The Bible teaches that the one God exists eternally in three separate and distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:9 does not teach that the totality of the Godhead was in the body of Jesus, but rather that Jesus embodied the totality of the divine nature and God is totally revealed in Him. If the Father and the Son are the same person, then the Oneness teachers have a difficult job explaining how the Father and the Son can love each other (See Matt. 3:17; 17:5; John 3:35; 5:20; 2 Pet. 1:17), talk to each other (see John 11:41-42; 12:28; 17:1-26), and know each other (see Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29).
Matthew 28:19 clearly reflects the Trinitarian concept that the “name” (authority and characteristics) of the one God is incorporated in the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2). (See the following verses affirming the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit: Luke 12:12; John 15:26; Acts 5:3-10; 13:2-4; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:7.) |
Well, many in the Oneness camp would not agree that what you post here accurately describes their position.
| Quote: |
They maintain that the only real “person” in the Godhead is Jesus. Thus, they are often referred to as the “Jesus Only |
”
Actually, the OP position would be that God (the Father) is only one person, and that his person is fully revealed in his Son, Jesus Christ. Like you, the OP position affirms that Jesus embodied the totality of the divine nature and God is totally revealed in Him.
| Quote: | | I guess when Jesus was baptized by John he was a ventriloquist. |
Actually, Trinitarians can be said to have the same problem. Since Trinitarianism affirms there is only one God and not three, then the one God was speaking to himself at Christ's baptism, was praying to himself in the garden, etc. So I'm really surprised you would consider such an argument to give your view an advantage.
| Quote: | | They maintain that God exists in two modes, as the Father in heaven and as Jesus the Son on earth. Nevertheless, they are the same person, not two separate persons. |
Whether we use the term "mode" or "person", both camps are affirming that the one true God continued to exist as Father in Heaven while existing as Son on earth. Again, the persons of the trinity are the revelation of the one true God, correct? I have twice quoted a Trinitarian writer who affirms this, a quote you have yet to respond to. I post it yet again below....
| Quote: | Here is how Trinitarian Christian scholar Emery Bancroft described it in his book Christian Theology, pages 87-88:
The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Spirit. The term Father designates that personal distinction in the divine nature in virtue of which God is related to the Son and, through the Son and the Spirit, to the church.
The Son is not God as such; for God is not only Son, but also Father and Holy Spirit. The Son designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father, and is sent by the Father to redeem the world, and with the Father sends the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not God as such; for God is not only Holy Spirit, but also Father and Son. The Holy Spirit designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father and the Son, and is sent by them to accomplish the work of renewing the ungodly and sanctifying the church. |
Continuing, you said...
| Quote: | | The Holy Spirit is not regarded as a person at all, merely a manifestation of Jesus’ power or a synonym for Him. |
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Oneness position views the Holy Spirit as who God is, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.....
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2)
And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man..(Gen. 6:3)
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh..(Joel 2:28)
| Quote: | The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)
|
In John 4 we see Jesus explaining to the Samaritan woman that a day was coming when God would give to mankind a gift that would not only give him eternal life, but would also drastically effect the way he worshiped God, bringing the advent of worshiping God in Spirit and in truth. Jesus was speaking of the day that Jehovah's own Spirit would indwell man as "a well of living water springing up unto everlasting life" We know, of course , that Jesus was speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 7:37). In the Old testament, Jehovah had already referred to himself as that life giving fountain...
| Quote: | | For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:13) |
In John 4:21-24 Jesus leaves no doubt that the Jehovah who would soon be coming to indwell men by his Spirit, and whose indwelling of men would usher in a new type of worship making the worship through the Law obsolete, was his own Father and not some mysterious "third person"....
| Quote: |
21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” |
Jesus affirms that the God whom the Jews had been worshiping, and would continue to worship, and who was the Spirit and would soon indwell the hearts of men , was his own Father. Thus the Father is the Holy Ghost.
Because of the incarnation and subsequent glorification of the Son, the Spirit that was poured out at Pentecost and indwells us today is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Because God is fully revealed in Christ, when God dwells in us Christ dwells in us.
Continuing, you said....
| Quote: |
Jesus is said to have two natures: human and divine. Thus, when He died, only His human nature died. |
God cannot die, by definition. I find the is very problematic for Trinitarians. if the one true God exists as three persons, then did "part" or "a third" of God die at the cross?
| Quote: | | Also, when Jesus prayed, it was His human nature praying to His divine nature – not to a separate Father in heaven. |
The Oneness position is that God is a Spirit that fills all the universe. He continued to do so while simultaneously existing on this earth in a human life. How is this really so different from the trinitarian position? Your position believes that the one true God was in Heaven through the person of the Father while being on earth through the person of the Son. Correct?
| Quote: |
As mentioned, the Oneness Pentecostal view of God is similar to the ancient heresy of Modalism. Modalism is the belief that one God existed in time in three distinct modes of being: first as the Father in heaven; second, bodily as the Son on earth; and finally as the Holy Spirit |
This is not what the Oneness position teaches. The Oneness position teaches that God has always been Spirit and Father , and in a certain point in time was incarnated and fully revealed through his Son while simultaneously remaining Spirit and Father. The Trinitarian position affirms that God is Father, Son and Spirit simultaneously, and so does the Oneness position.
| Quote: | | Matthew 28:19 clearly reflects the Trinitarian concept that the “name” (authority and characteristics) of the one God is incorporated in the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit |
In verse 18, Jesus has already declared that "all authority in Heaven and in Earth has been given unto ME..." Thus the name (authority) he mentions in verse 19 is that same authority he is referring to in verse 18 that has been given to him. Thus when one is baptized into the name of Jesus , they are being baptized into that same authority, the authority of God delegated to and revealed through his Son.
I hope this helps you to better understand the Oneness position and causes you to see that much of what you have been taught about it has been inaccurate.
_________________
"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
Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 7/15/16 1:03 pm; edited 2 times in total |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
7/15/16 10:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
