Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

There is NO ONE ONENESS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There is NO ONE ONENESS

    No ONE Oneness (theology/Christology) Oneness Orthodoxy

    I wanted to explain again that there is no “Oneness Orthodoxy” and I want to explain this using the words and explanations of Oneness Pentecostals themselves as much as is possible. I have often pointed out that Oneness Pentecostalism is a form of “negative/apophatic theology” because what unites them in their identity is not what they believe to be true about God, but what they don’t believe is true about God. Their core “beliefs” would be better described as “anti-beliefs” rather than affirmative beliefs. Allow me to define these terms for clarity:

    Negative theology: Also known as Via Negativa (Negative Way) and Apophatic theology, negative theology is a Christian theological system that attempts to describe the nature of God by focusing on what God is not rather than on what God is.

    Apophatic (adj): pertaining to a knowledge of God obtained through negation

    Anti-belief: against; opposing: a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith
    • anti: against; opposing:
    • belief: a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith

    In other words, what unites Oneness Pentecostals is not what they affirm, it is what they deny. They are anti-Trinitarian (anti-belief), this is what they have in common, not a common theology/Christology. They claim the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three persons (negative theology) but I'm not sure any two "Oneness" agree on what the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit actually are. This is why you generally see Oneness argue “for their position” by attempting “to argue against” whatever it is they believe the doctrine of the Trinity teaches (though their understanding of the Trinity is invariably incorrect). This is the “Oneness Pentecostal identity,” i.e. anti-Trinitarian (and arguing against the existence of the three divine persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

    This is further evidenced by the fact that there are so many different explanations of the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit among Oneness Pentecostals, radically different explanations. In these divergent Christology’s one can see elements of Arianism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism Monophysitism, Gnostic type emanationism, Modalist Monarchianism, and strange hybrids of these Christological heresies. The fact that their Christology (and therefore their theology since they claim there is only one person) is this radically divergent does not affect their sense of group unity and identity because, as I said, their identity is not defined by what they believe but by what they reject.

    With that said, most people outside of Oneness Pentecostalism assume that “Oneness” are modalists, i.e. Modalist Monarchians. I believe this assumption is made because generally Oneness claim to believe that God is one divine person and that God the Father and Jesus Christ are that same person. This would indeed be the claim of the true Modalist Monarchian but a Modalist Monarchian would not claim that there existed real personal distinctions between the Father and the Son (such as the Father and Son loving and communicating with each other). The Modalist Monarchian would not claim the Son really suffered on the cross but the Father really did not because they truly assert that there is only one person and are therefore Patripassians (i.e. the Father suffered). The Modalist Monarchian would claim that whatever can be said of the Father could be said of the Son because they are the same person, it is just different roles. They would say that when the Son prayed to the Father He was not really praying to someone other than Himself because there would be no one other than Himself to pray to and that the prayers were only as an example to his followers.

    Oneness Pentecostals who are true Oneness, i.e. Modalist Monarchians, are few and far between. I have yet to find one on a discussion board in more than ten years. It is important to understand this because, as I previously said, most people outside of Oneness Pentecostalism believe Oneness theology/Christology teaches Modalism. You need look no further than the CARM website and the questions which one should ask a Oneness Pentecostal. Those would be excellent questions to ask the modalist monarchian but those questions are not very effective in determining the core beliefs held by the majority of Oneness who teach a real personal relationship exists between the Father and the Son.

    Before going further let’s look at what Oneness Pentecostals have to say regarding Oneness Pentecostal “beliefs.” The following was written by a Oneness Pentecostal on a Oneness discussion board. What he describes as “Hyper-Oneness” is actually the Modalist Monarchian (Sabellian) belief:
    “This is an issue that comes up from time to time, and I thought it would be good to discuss it here. Most Oneness people see Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, but recognize that the flesh is not just a shell or a husk, but an actual human man, making Jesus both God and man at the same time. We talk about the dual nature of Jesus, and we recognize that, while Jesus was God according to the spirit, on some strictly finite human level, there was a son of God. We have no hesitation about referring to the man Christ Jesus as the literal son of God, while still recognizing His divinity (which is the spirit of the Father in Him). We see an intertwining of deity and humanity, without detracting from either. But there are, within our ranks, a number of people who have a very different view of this...a view that I find startling, personally.

    You've heard of "hyper-Calvinism" before? Well, I've nick-named this the "hyper-Oneness" position. Those who believe this way go to Oneness churches and baptize in Jesus' name, just like the rest of us, but their view of Jesus is radically different. Basically, they see Jesus as nothing more than God in a shell of human flesh, basically "being" his own son. To their way of thinking, Jesus was just the Father going through the motions of sonship, putting on a demonstration of submission, and acting out the role of a son, but they don't really believe in a literal son of God at all.

    Hyper-Oneness believers are constantly having to re-interpret and re-define (read: twist) what the scriptures are actually saying. When they read scriptures about the Father loving the son, or about the son growing in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man, they have to make that into the Father "loved that image of himself" (sort of). The beautiful story of the garden of Gethesemane, where Jesus surrended his will in the garden and said "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" is totally lost on them, as they see it more or less as a divine example or a charade.

    Some scriptures are particularly troublesome to those who hold this position. For example, when Jesus died on the cross and said "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit", that gets re-interpreted into something like God releasing the Spirit to go back to Himself (God-the-acrobat?). And the verse about the son delivering the kingdom up to the Father that God may be all in all--well, they just read over that one fast and kind of don't think about it too much.

    I used to go to a church where the pastor was very much into this postion. I tried very hard--desperately, even--to accept that position and make it fit with the Bible, but it just didn't jibe with the scriptures, and that's all there was to it. I would be told that I "needed a revelation", and when I would ask about all of the many scriptures that so resoundingly refute this position, I'd get get absolutely no where. Later on, I came to realize that I wasn't the one who needed a revelation--they were.

    I have since found that a proper Oneness explanation (one that doesn't clash with half the Bible) is not only the accepted norm in our circles, but that those who are taught a correct view are scarcely aware of aberrant views on the issue that exist. But the arrogance, the hostility, and the stinging rejection of those on the other side (people who don't even bother trying to make their view jibe with the Word of God) is hard to take. I have actually seen a church divided over this to the point where people completely lost respect for their pastor, saying he "needed a revelation" when he taught Bro. Bernard's book "the Oneness of the Godhead" and dealt with Jesus saying "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit". The fact that their position was indefensible in the light of much of the Bible didn't deter them in the least.

    What have the rest of you seen with regard to this? Does it seem to follow geographical trends? It would be interesting to see if there is a pattern.”-Oneness Pentecostal
    Another Oneness poster replied saying, “Thanks for that info Brother. I've often wondered why some folks would say that oneness teaches that Jesus was His own father. It's because of this group that's got it wrong. I would like to hear more about this.” Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle describes “modalism” as “the "God in a costume" view of the incarnation.”

    The point here is that if discussion boards can be trusted as at least representative of Oneness beliefs, they are not “Oneness” in the sense of being modalist monarchians. In other words, they are not “Oneness” in their theology/Christology. Here is a look at what another Oneness Pentecostal noted in a thread he began titled “What we must agree on.”
    What we must agree on?

    -Some apostolics are basically modalists - Father, Son, and Spirit are thre primary modes or aspects of God's multi-faceted existence.
    -Some apostolics are Nestorian - There is the Father (deity) and the Son (humanity) in one Person (Jesus) - see brother Drysdale's answer to Gregory Boyd for what seems to me a thoroughly Nestorian approach to Oneness Christology.
    -Some are Apollinarian - Jesus was the "mind" or "spirit" of God in a human body - God "robed in flesh".
    -Some say Jesus is God, therefore our God came and shed his blood for us...
    -Others (a la Drysdale) cringe at such statements - saying God doesn't die, rather the man died, the Father left the man at death, the man felt forsaken, etc etc.
    -Some almost sound Docetic - like the Heavenly flesh doctrine which states that God appeared as a man, but did not become a man.
    -And again, brother Drysdale demands that God did NOT become a man, but dwelt In a man...
    -Some say God became a man, and the man himself is God.
    -Others say the man was indwelled by God so much that the two are virtually indistinguishable, that is why Jesus is God...
    -Some suggest that Jesus had a human body and mind, but his spirit was the Holy Ghost.
    -Some say he had a human spirit as well as the Holy Ghost.
    -Some say he had a human mind, others treat him as if God merely hopped in a body.
    -And others say God became a man, so that the man is fully a man, only a man, and nothing more than a man, but because it was God who became that man, he is therefore God.
    -Some say God exists in two dimensions - one Divine (Father), one human (Son).
    -Others say it is the man who exists in two dimensions, as God and as son of God.
    -Others say Jesus is neither merely a man, nor God, but a Person who is both man and God (whatever that may mean).

    And on and on it goes. My question is, what must we all agree on, to be apostolic? Surely there is room for diverse opinions or understandings, but also there must be some boundaries outside of which we dare not stray without risking heresy and false doctrine.”--Oneness Pentecostal
    As this Oneness Pentecostal notes: “And on and on it goes” There is no orthodox Oneness theology/Christology, no ONE Oneness “belief” as regards the Father and the Son. Is it any wonder that when I googled “Oneness Christology” or “Orthodox Oneness Pentecostal,” and other such search items that I never obtain any definitive results? Oh, you can get Jason Dulle’s teachings, but he is only one of many beliefs. And even those on this board who claim Dulle teaches real Oneness theology/Christology can’t seem to defend his teachings and often end up saying “that’s what Dulle says, you will have to ask him about it.”

    I noticed that a few recent threads at the AFF (a Oneness Pentecostal discussion board) that discussed or asked questions regarding the theology/Christology of Oneness were summarily removed (apparently to the debate section of the board which can’t be viewed by outsiders). One was a poll asking whether the respondents believed 1.) the Son was God, 2.) the Son was God but derived his deity from the Father, or 3.) the Son was not God. (at least as I recall). The options are pretty ambiguous. However, the last time I saw this poll before it was moved 15% of respondents outright said the Son was not God. The majority went for the compromise saying that the Son was God but that He derived His divinity from the Father. Neither #2 or #3 sound inherently Oneness do they?

    If I recall correctly, another thread was begun by a Oneness Apologist by the name of Mike Blume who was going to explain Oneness theology/Christology quite simply. I wish I could remember more of what he said but I do remember chuckling because on the one hand he claimed that Oneness were modalist monarchian and then went on to describe a Christology that was clearly Nestorian (at the very least). But this thread was moved too. So the question is, why do Oneness wish to hide their beliefs? My answer is because they don’t really have ONE. As I stated at the beginning, their core unifying belief, that which gives them their identity is actually anti-belief, anti-doctrine, negative theology.

    This is why it is hard to get clear answers from Oneness Pentecostals. Their answers, when they will give them, are usually cloaked in vague and ambiguous language. Even then it is generally incoherent, contradictory, and internally inconsistent. This negative theology, anti-belief can be seen in their approach to Scripture, especially the New Testament. They have a hermeneutic that is best described as “it doesn’t really mean what it says.” They try to overlay their negative theology onto Scripture itself.

    So is it any wonder that as you go through the threads on this board you will find that Oneness seem loathed to explain their beliefs and answer your questions? Is it any wonder they are so defensive that they are often “offensive?” You can see their negative theology and anti-doctrine in almost every thread when asking about Oneness beliefs as the Oneness believers invariably want to talk about the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least their misunderstanding of it. That is perhaps the other extraordinary distinctive about their negative theology and their anti-doctrine. They don’t really understand what they are disagreeing with, their own personal version will do. These are the things I find very unique about Oneness Pentecostals:

    1. The fact that their “belief” system is actually negative theology and perhaps even more accurately, and anti-belief (this anti-belief, as explained above, is certainly their identity, the one true unifying “doctrine”).
    2. As a group, they do not really know what they believe concerning the “Oneness” of the Father and the Son.
    3. In their anti-belief they do not, as a rule, understand what they are arguing against but it doesn’t matter.

    The mechanics of that are really quite fascinating when you think about it (not being able to explain what they really believe while claiming something they don’t understand is wrong).

    TheLayman

  • #2
    Thank you TheLayman. I hope that I have your permission to copy and paste your post in my Word-Pad. This will give me time to think and reflect over such apologetic knowledge.
    Interdenominational (Respecting all Churches by demonstrating the power of Biblical unity).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Binyawmene View Post
      Thank you TheLayman. I hope that I have your permission to copy and paste your post in my Word-Pad. This will give me time to think and reflect over such apologetic knowledge.
      Of course!

      TheLayman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TheLayman View Post
        No ONE Oneness (theology/Christology) Oneness Orthodoxy

        Apophatic (adj): pertaining to a knowledge of God obtained through negation

        Anti-belief: against; opposing: a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith
        • anti: against; opposing:
        • belief: a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith

        In other words, what unites Oneness Pentecostals is not what they affirm, it is what they deny. They are anti-Trinitarian (anti-belief), this is what they have in common, not a common theology/Christology. They claim the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three persons (negative theology) but I'm not sure any two "Oneness" agree on what the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit actually are. This is why you generally see Oneness argue “for their position” by attempting “to argue against” whatever it is they believe the doctrine of the Trinity teaches (though their understanding of the Trinity is invariably incorrect). This is the “Oneness Pentecostal identity,” i.e. anti-Trinitarian (and arguing against the existence of the three divine persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

        This is further evidenced by the fact that there are so many different explanations of the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit among Oneness Pentecostals, radically different explanations. In these divergent Christology’s one can see elements of Arianism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism Monophysitism, Gnostic type emanationism, Modalist Monarchianism, and strange hybrids of these Christological heresies. The fact that their Christology (and therefore their theology since they claim there is only one person) is this radically divergent does not affect their sense of group unity and identity because, as I said, their identity is not defined by what they believe but by what they reject.

        Father and the Son.
        With that said, most people outside of Oneness Pentecostalism assume that “Oneness” are modalists, i.e. Modalist Monarchians. I believe this assumption is made because generally Oneness claim to believe that God is one divine person and that God the Father and Jesus Christ are that same person. This would indeed be the claim of the true Modalist Monarchian but a Modalist Monarchian would not claim that there existed real personal distinctions between the Father and the Son (such as the Father and Son loving and communicating with each other). The Modalist Monarchian would not claim the Son really suffered on the cross but the Father really did not because they truly assert that there is only one person and are therefore Patripassians (i.e. the Father suffered). The Modalist Monarchian would claim that whatever can be said of the Father could be said of the Son because they are the same person, it is just different roles. They would say that when the Son prayed to the Father He was not really praying to someone other than Himself because there would be no one other than Himself to pray to and that the prayers were only as an example to his followers.

        Oneness Pentecostals who are true Oneness, i.e. Modalist Monarchians, are few and far between. I have yet to find one on a discussion board in more than ten years. It is important to understand this because, as I previously said, most people outside of Oneness Pentecostalism believe Oneness theology/Christology teaches Modalism. You need look no further than the CARM website and the questions which one should ask a Oneness Pentecostal. Those would be excellent questions to ask the modalist monarchian but those questions are not very effective in determining the core beliefs held by the majority of Oneness who teach a real personal relationship exists between the
        Before going further let’s look at what Oneness Pentecostals have to say regarding Oneness Pentecostal “beliefs.” The following was written by a Oneness Pentecostal on a Oneness discussion board. What he describes as “Hyper-Oneness” is actually the Modalist Monarchian (Sabellian) belief:


        Hyper-Oneness believers are constantly having to re-interpret and re-define (read: twist) what the scriptures are actually saying. When they read scriptures about the Father loving the son, or about the son growing in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man, they have to make that into the Father "loved that image of himself" (sort of). The beautiful story of the garden of Gethesemane, where Jesus surrended his will in the garden and said "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" is totally lost on them, as they see it more or less as a divine example or a charade.

        Some scriptures are particularly troublesome to those who hold this position. For example, when Jesus died on the cross and said "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit", that gets re-interpreted into something like God releasing the Spirit to go back to Himself (God-the-acrobat?). And the verse about the son delivering the kingdom up to the Father that God may be all in all--well, they just read over that one fast and kind of don't think about it too much.

        I used to go to a church where the pastor was very much into this postion. I tried very hard--desperately, even--to accept that position and make it fit with the Bible, but it just didn't jibe with the scriptures, and that's all there was to it. I would be told that I "needed a revelation", and when I would ask about all of the many scriptures that so resoundingly refute this position, I'd get get absolutely no where. Later on, I came to realize that I wasn't the one who needed a revelation--they were.

        I have since found that a proper Oneness explanation (one that doesn't clash with half the Bible) is not only the accepted norm in our circles, but that those who are taught a correct view are scarcely aware of aberrant views on the issue that exist. But the arrogance, the hostility, and the stinging rejection of those on the other side (people who don't even bother trying to make their view jibe with the Word of God) is hard to take. I have actually seen a church divided over this to the point where people completely lost respect for their pastor, saying he "needed a revelation" when he taught Bro. Bernard's book "the Oneness of the Godhead" and dealt with Jesus saying "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit". The fact that their position was indefensible in the light of much of the Bible didn't deter them in the least.

        What have the rest of you seen with regard to this? Does it seem to follow geographical trends? It would be interesting to see if there is a pattern.”-Oneness Pentecostal[/I][/INDENT]
        Another Oneness poster replied saying, “Thanks for that info Brother. I've often wondered why some folks would say that oneness teaches that Jesus was His own father. It's because of this group that's got it wrong. I would like to hear more about this.” Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle describes “modalism” as “the "God in a costume" view of the incarnation.”

        The point here is that if discussion boards can be trusted as at least representative of Oneness beliefs, they are not “Oneness” in the sense of being modalist monarchians. In other words, they are not “Oneness” in their theology/Christology. Here is a look at what another Oneness Pentecostal noted in a thread he began titled “What we must agree on.”
        What we must agree on?

        -Some apostolics are basically modalists - Father, Son, and Spirit are thre primary modes or aspects of God's multi-faceted existence.
        -Some apostolics are Nestorian - There is the Father (deity) and the Son (humanity) in one Person (Jesus) - see brother Drysdale's answer to Gregory Boyd for what seems to me a thoroughly Nestorian approach to Oneness Christology.
        -Some are Apollinarian - Jesus was the "mind" or "spirit" of God in a human body - God "robed in flesh".
        -Some say Jesus is God, therefore our God came and shed his blood for us...
        -Others (a la Drysdale) cringe at such statements - saying God doesn't die, rather the man died, the Father left the man at death, the man felt forsaken, etc etc.
        -Some almost sound Docetic - like the Heavenly flesh doctrine which states that God appeared as a man, but did not become a man.
        -And again, brother Drysdale demands that God did NOT become a man, but dwelt In a man...
        -Some say God became a man, and the man himself is God.
        -Others say the man was indwelled by God so much that the two are virtually indistinguishable, that is why Jesus is God...
        -Some suggest that Jesus had a human body and mind, but his spirit was the Holy Ghost.
        -Some say he had a human spirit as well as the Holy Ghost.
        -Some say he had a human mind, others treat him as if God merely hopped in a body.
        -And others say God became a man, so that the man is fully a man, only a man, and nothing more than a man, but because it was God who became that man, he is therefore God.
        -Some say God exists in two dimensions - one Divine (Father), one human (Son).
        -Others say it is the man who exists in two dimensions, as God and as son of God.
        -Others say Jesus is neither merely a man, nor God, but a Person who is both man and God (whatever that may mean).

        And on and on it goes. My question is, what must we all agree on, to be apostolic? Surely there is room for diverse opinions or understandings, but also there must be some boundaries outside of which we dare not stray without risking heresy and false doctrine.”--Oneness Pentecostal
        As this Oneness Pentecostal notes: “And on and on it goes” There is no orthodox Oneness theology/Christology, no ONE Oneness “belief” as regards the Father and the Son. Is it any wonder that when I googled “Oneness Christology” or “Orthodox Oneness Pentecostal,” and other such search items that I never obtain any definitive results? Oh, you can get Jason Dulle’s teachings, but he is only one of many beliefs. And even those on this board who claim Dulle teaches real Oneness theology/Christology can’t seem to defend his teachings and often end up saying “that’s what Dulle says, you will have to ask him about it.”

        I noticed that a few recent threads at the AFF (a Oneness Pentecostal discussion board) that discussed or asked questions regarding the theology/Christology of Oneness were summarily removed (apparently to the debate section of the board which can’t be viewed by outsiders). One was a poll asking whether the respondents believed 1.) the Son was God, 2.) the Son was God but derived his deity from the Father, or 3.) the Son was not God. (at least as I recall). The options are pretty ambiguous. However, the last time I saw this poll before it was moved 15% of respondents outright said the Son was not God. The majority went for the compromise saying that the Son was God but that He derived His divinity from the Father. Neither #2 or #3 sound inherently Oneness do they?

        If I recall correctly, another thread was begun by a Oneness Apologist by the name of Mike Blume who was going to explain Oneness theology/Christology quite simply. I wish I could remember more of what he said but I do remember chuckling because on the one hand he claimed that Oneness were modalist monarchian and then went on to describe a Christology that was clearly Nestorian (at the very least). But this thread was moved too. So the question is, why do Oneness wish to hide their beliefs? My answer is because they don’t really have ONE. As I stated at the beginning, their core unifying belief, that which gives them their identity is actually anti-belief, anti-doctrine, negative theology.

        This is why it is hard to get clear answers from Oneness Pentecostals. Their answers, when they will give them, are usually cloaked in vague and ambiguous language. Even then it is generally incoherent, contradictory, and internally inconsistent. This negative theology, anti-belief can be seen in their approach to Scripture, especially the New Testament. They have a hermeneutic that is best described as “it doesn’t really mean what it says.” They try to overlay their negative theology onto Scripture itself.

        So is it any wonder that as you go through the threads on this board you will find that Oneness seem loathed to explain their beliefs and answer your questions? Is it any wonder they are so defensive that they are often “offensive?” You can see their negative theology and anti-doctrine in almost every thread when asking about Oneness beliefs as the Oneness believers invariably want to talk about the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least their misunderstanding of it. That is perhaps the other extraordinary distinctive about their negative theology and their anti-doctrine. They don’t really understand what they are disagreeing with, their own personal version will do. These are the things I find very unique about Oneness Pentecostals:

        1. The fact that their “belief” system is actually negative theology and perhaps even more accurately, and anti-belief (this anti-belief, as explained above, is certainly their identity, the one true unifying “doctrine”).
        2. As a group, they do not really know what they believe concerning the “Oneness” of the Father and the Son.
        3. In their anti-belief they do not, as a rule, understand what they are arguing against but it doesn’t matter.

        The mechanics of that are really quite fascinating when you think about it (not being able to explain what they really believe while claiming something they don’t understand is wrong).

        TheLayman
        Although there is some validity in your post, Your first premise is a strawman if we are taking ques from the Trinitarian doctor who says we can not know the divine essence itself but we can know what God is by what He is not.

        Seems many of us believe our toddler understanding or basic one party line ritual on the nature of God is the only understanding in existence .

        According to the Trinitarian doctor Angelicus who by the way history says is more qualified to speak on her whole triune dogmatic systems says:

        OF THE SIMPLICITY OF GOD (EIGHT ARTICLES)


        When the existence of a thing has been ascertained there remains the further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may know its essence. Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not.

        Therefore, we must consider: (1) How He is not; (2) How He is known by us; (3) How He is named.

        Now it can be shown how God is not, by denying Him whatever is opposed to the idea of Him, viz. composition, motion, and the like. Therefore (1) we must discuss His simplicity, whereby we deny composition in Him; and because whatever is simple in material things is imperfect and a part of something else, we shall discuss (2) His perfection; (3) His infinity; (4) His immutability; (5) His unity.

        Concerning His simplicity, there are eight points of inquiry:

        (1) Whether God is a body?

        (2) Whether He is composed of matter and form?

        (3) Whether in Him there is composition of quiddity, essence or nature, and subject?

        (4) Whether He is composed of essence and existence?

        (5) Whether He is composed of genus and difference?

        (6) Whether He is composed of subject and accident?

        (7) Whether He is in any way composite, or wholly simple?

        (8) Whether He enters into composition with other things?
        http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q3.html
        We can address this Trinitarian strawman before we can continue.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post
          Although there is some validity in your post, Your first premise is a strawman if we are taking ques from the Trinitarian doctor who says we can not know the divine essence itself but we can know what God is by what He is not.

          Seems many of us believe our toddler understanding or basic one party line ritual on the nature of God is the only understanding in existence .

          According to the Trinitarian doctor Angelicus who by the way history says is more qualified to speak on her whole triune dogmatic systems says:



          We can address this Trinitarian strawman before we can continue.

          You just proved TheLayman's point...nt
          Last edited by all4Him; 09-09-15, 06:17 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by all4Him View Post
            You just proved TheLayman's point...nt
            It's extraordinary isn't it?

            TheLayman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post
              Although there is some validity in your post, Your first premise is a strawman if we are taking ques from the Trinitarian doctor who says we can not know the divine essence itself but we can know what God is by what He is not.

              Seems many of us believe our toddler understanding or basic one party line ritual on the nature of God is the only understanding in existence .

              According to the Trinitarian doctor Angelicus who by the way history says is more qualified to speak on her whole triune dogmatic systems says:



              We can address this Trinitarian strawman before we can continue.
              What do you believe the strawman is AEG? I did not say others, including Trinitarians, don' use apophatic methodology at times and for certain things...in philosophy negative reasoning can be used for things besides God. If you will read closely you will see that the point of what I wrote is that "the negative way" is basically all encompassing in Oneness (and that is not what Aquinas was saying but I'm no longer going to try to explain things to you that you are completely clueless about). As I pointed out, this "negative way" with Oneness basically results in a core anti-belief of being anti-Trinitarian (and this is generally not how the term "apophatic theology is used but it fits). And as I pointed out, this "negative way" even goes to Oneness and exegesis of Scripture as when you get to the many passages, hundreds actually, that refute their supposed "unitarian belief" (though they actually teach two persons then must deny that they do) the best and usual exegesis that they can provide is a form of "it does not mean what it says." The second point (which reinforces the first) is that they have no orthodox affirmative way of explaining their supposed "unitarian" belief as regards Father and Son.

              I note in the other thread you were just in where you spoke of dumbing yourself down...you know, the one where you didn't know the difference between "ideal and real" and apparently still don't understand that those terms are being used to refer to ontology. Well, perhaps it's not a good idea for you to try to dumb yourself down. Let me explain a straw man to you...you would have to show first of all that Oneness does not use apophatic theology (good luck) and then you may want to look at the bigger point regarding anti-belief as opposed to affirmative beliefs. See, when you go googling a word like "apophatic" because you don't know what it means it's probably not a good idea to just start spouting off as if you are actually addressing something pertinent. Now try reading the opening post again and picking out the points that are made because sorry to say, and as usual, you didn't address any of them.

              TheLayman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheLayman View Post
                What do you believe the strawman is AEG? I did not say others, including Trinitarians, don' use apophatic methodology at times and for certain things...in philosophy negative reasoning can be used for things besides God. If you will read closely you will see that the point of what I wrote is that "the negative way" is basically all encompassing in Oneness (and that is not what Aquinas was saying but I'm no longer going to try to explain things to you that you are completely clueless about). As I pointed out, this "negative way" with Oneness basically results in a core anti-belief of being anti-Trinitarian (and this is generally not how the term "apophatic theology is used but it fits). And as I pointed out, this "negative way" even goes to Oneness and exegesis of Scripture as when you get to the many passages, hundreds actually, that refute their supposed "unitarian belief" (though they actually teach two persons then must deny that they do) the best and usual exegesis that they can provide is a form of "it does not mean what it says." The second point (which reinforces the first) is that they have no orthodox affirmative way of explaining their supposed "unitarian" belief as regards Father and Son.

                I note in the other thread you were just in where you spoke of dumbing yourself down...you know, the one where you didn't know the difference between "ideal and real" and apparently still don't understand that those terms are being used to refer to ontology. Well, perhaps it's not a good idea for you to try to dumb yourself down. Let me explain a straw man to you...you would have to show first of all that Oneness does not use apophatic theology (good luck) and then you may want to look at the bigger point regarding anti-belief as opposed to affirmative beliefs. See, when you go googling a word like "apophatic" because you don't know what it means it's probably not a good idea to just start spouting off as if you are actually addressing something pertinent. Now try reading the opening post again and picking out the points that are made because sorry to say, and as usual, you didn't address any of them.

                TheLayman
                There is no need to explain more I was only speaking to or opening statement which you have stated before. My point was Trinitarians do the same thing, You need to stop being dramatic as if I said something far left.you act like your not satisfied unless I just dumb myself down and say Jesus was His own Father,the Father dies , praying to Himself etc. if I'm not saying that then I need to confess distinct persons or you can't talk to me because I don't fit into the agree to disagree box you people have grown so accustomed to. I read your disdain in the tone of your post.

                I know what a strawman is like I know ideal and real, A strawman is what Trinitarians have been giving Oneness throughout history.


                i-de-al


                [ahy-dee-uh l, ahy-deel]

                Spell Syllables

                Synonyms
                Examples
                Word Origin


                noun


                1.

                a conception of something in its perfection.

                2.

                a standard of perfection or excellence.

                3.

                a person or thing conceived as embodying such a conception or conforming to such a standard, and taken as a model for imitation:
                Thomas Jefferson was his ideal.

                4.
                an ultimate object or aim of endeavor, especially one of high or noble character:
                He refuses to compromise any of his ideals.
                5.

                something that exists only in the imagination:
                To achieve the ideal is almost hopeless.

                6.

                Mathematics. a subring of a ring, any element of which when multiplied by any element of the ring results in an element of the subring.

                adjective
                7.
                conceived as constituting a standard of perfection or excellence:
                ideal beauty.

                8.

                regarded as perfect of its kind:
                an ideal spot for a home.

                9.

                existing only in the imagination; not real or actual:
                Nature is real; beauty is ideal.

                10.

                advantageous; excellent; best:
                It would be ideal if she could accompany us as she knows the way.

                11.

                based upon an ideal or ideals:
                the ideal theory of numbers.

                12.

                Philosophy. a. pertaining to a possible state of affairs considered as highly desirable.
                b. pertaining to or of the nature of idealism
                http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideal?s=t

                re-al1


                [ree-uh l, reel]

                Spell Syllables

                Synonyms
                Examples
                Word Origin

                adjective

                1.

                true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent:
                the real reason for an act.

                2.

                existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious:
                a story taken from real life.

                3.

                being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary:
                The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.


                4.

                being actually such; not merely so-called:
                a real victory.


                5.

                genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic:
                a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.


                6.

                unfeigned or sincere:
                real sympathy; a real friend.

                7.

                Informal. absolute; complete; utter:
                She's a real brain.



                adverb


                12.

                Informal. very or extremely:
                You did a real nice job painting the house.


                noun


                13.

                real number.


                14.

                the real. a.something that actually exists, as a particular quantity.
                b. reality in general.


                Idioms


                15.

                for real, Informal. a.in reality; actually:
                You mean she dyed her hair green for real?

                b.real; actual:
                The company's plans to relocate are for real.

                c.genuine; sincere:
                I don't believe his friendly attitude is for real.
                http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/real?s=t

                I'm not understanding your dramatics,I took only your first point and you know what :We do know God by knowing what He is not. The difference is only in knowledge itself.

                Oh and yes some oneness do in fact tread in the manner you have suggested above .I am not one of them. The ones that do will probably not answer this post, because in a oneness mind ,comfort is taken not signifying distinct persons. To a oneness this word person implies separate individuals therefore it will not be contrasted in the plural which is evident by the exegesis of scriptures oneness tend to give.

                In the words of the great theologian Hilary Clinton. "What difference does it make."
                Last edited by Aeg4371; 09-09-15, 12:37 PM. Reason: correction

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post
                  There is no need to explain more I was only speaking to or opening statement which you have stated before. My point was Trinitarians do the same thing, You need to stop being dramatic as if I said something far left.you act like your not satisfied unless I just dumb myself down and say Jesus was His own Father,the Father dies , praying to Himself etc. if I'm not saying that then I need to confess distinct persons or you can't talk to me because I don't fit into the agree to disagree box you people have grown so accustomed to. I read your disdain in the tone of your post.

                  I know what a strawman is like I know ideal and real, A strawman is what Trinitarians have been giving Oneness throughout history.


                  I'm not understanding your dramatics,I took only your first point and you know what :We do know God by knowing what He is not. The difference is only in knowledge itself.

                  Oh and yes some oneness do in fact tread in the manner you have suggested above .I am not one of them. The ones that do will probably not answer this post, because in a oneness mind ,comfort is taken not signifying distinct persons. To a oneness this word person implies separate individuals therefore it will not be contrasted in the plural which is evident by the exegesis of scriptures oneness tend to give.

                  In the words of the great theologian Hilary Clinton. "What difference does it make."
                  Sorry AEG, I don't speak gibberish so I'm not even going to try to decode what you said. I do know that you didn't show any straw man and as usual I know you are not going to be responsive to the actual topic of the thread (as usual I'm not even sure you actually read the posts you are responding to), you are simply here to disrupt as you fancy yourself some sort of great intellectual debater or something.

                  TheLayman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheLayman View Post
                    No ONE Oneness (theology/Christology) Oneness Orthodoxy

                    I wanted to explain again that there is no “Oneness Orthodoxy” and I want to explain this using the words and explanations of Oneness Pentecostals themselves as much as is possible. I have often pointed out that Oneness Pentecostalism is a form of “negative/apophatic theology” because what unites them in their identity is not what they believe to be true about God, but what they don’t believe is true about God. Their core “beliefs” would be better described as “anti-beliefs” rather than affirmative beliefs. Allow me to define these terms for clarity:...

                    Another Oneness poster replied saying, “Thanks for that info Brother. I've often wondered why some folks would say that oneness teaches that Jesus was His own father. It's because of this group that's got it wrong. I would like to hear more about this.” Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle describes “modalism” as “the "God in a costume" view of the incarnation.”

                    The point here is that if discussion boards can be trusted as at least representative of Oneness beliefs, they are not “Oneness” in the sense of being modalist monarchians. In other words, they are not “Oneness” in their theology/Christology. Here is a look at what another Oneness Pentecostal noted in a thread he began titled “What we must agree on.”
                    What we must agree on?

                    -Some apostolics are basically modalists - Father, Son, and Spirit are thre primary modes or aspects of God's multi-faceted existence.
                    -Some apostolics are Nestorian - There is the Father (deity) and the Son (humanity) in one Person (Jesus) - see brother Drysdale's answer to Gregory Boyd for what seems to me a thoroughly Nestorian approach to Oneness Christology.
                    -Some are Apollinarian - Jesus was the "mind" or "spirit" of God in a human body - God "robed in flesh".
                    -Some say Jesus is God, therefore our God came and shed his blood for us...
                    -Others (a la Drysdale) cringe at such statements - saying God doesn't die, rather the man died, the Father left the man at death, the man felt forsaken, etc etc.
                    -Some almost sound Docetic - like the Heavenly flesh doctrine which states that God appeared as a man, but did not become a man.
                    -And again, brother Drysdale demands that God did NOT become a man, but dwelt In a man...
                    -Some say God became a man, and the man himself is God.
                    -Others say the man was indwelled by God so much that the two are virtually indistinguishable, that is why Jesus is God...
                    -Some suggest that Jesus had a human body and mind, but his spirit was the Holy Ghost.
                    -Some say he had a human spirit as well as the Holy Ghost.
                    -Some say he had a human mind, others treat him as if God merely hopped in a body.
                    -And others say God became a man, so that the man is fully a man, only a man, and nothing more than a man, but because it was God who became that man, he is therefore God.
                    -Some say God exists in two dimensions - one Divine (Father), one human (Son).
                    -Others say it is the man who exists in two dimensions, as God and as son of God.
                    -Others say Jesus is neither merely a man, nor God, but a Person who is both man and God (whatever that may mean).

                    And on and on it goes. My question is, what must we all agree on, to be apostolic? Surely there is room for diverse opinions or understandings, but also there must be some boundaries outside of which we dare not stray without risking heresy and false doctrine.”--Oneness Pentecostal
                    As this Oneness Pentecostal notes: “And on and on it goes” There is no orthodox Oneness theology/Christology, no ONE Oneness “belief” as regards the Father and the Son. Is it any wonder that when I googled “Oneness Christology” or “Orthodox Oneness Pentecostal,” and other such search items that I never obtain any definitive results? Oh, you can get Jason Dulle’s teachings, but he is only one of many beliefs. And even those on this board who claim Dulle teaches real Oneness theology/Christology can’t seem to defend his teachings and often end up saying “that’s what Dulle says, you will have to ask him about it.”

                    I noticed that a few recent threads at the AFF (a Oneness Pentecostal discussion board) that discussed or asked questions regarding the theology/Christology of Oneness were summarily removed (apparently to the debate section of the board which can’t be viewed by outsiders). One was a poll asking whether the respondents believed 1.) the Son was God, 2.) the Son was God but derived his deity from the Father, or 3.) the Son was not God. (at least as I recall). The options are pretty ambiguous. However, the last time I saw this poll before it was moved 15% of respondents outright said the Son was not God. The majority went for the compromise saying that the Son was God but that He derived His divinity from the Father. Neither #2 or #3 sound inherently Oneness do they?

                    If I recall correctly, another thread was begun by a Oneness Apologist by the name of Mike Blume who was going to explain Oneness theology/Christology quite simply. I wish I could remember more of what he said but I do remember chuckling because on the one hand he claimed that Oneness were modalist monarchian and then went on to describe a Christology that was clearly Nestorian (at the very least). But this thread was moved too. So the question is, why do Oneness wish to hide their beliefs? My answer is because they don’t really have ONE. As I stated at the beginning, their core unifying belief, that which gives them their identity is actually anti-belief, anti-doctrine, negative theology.

                    This is why it is hard to get clear answers from Oneness Pentecostals. Their answers, when they will give them, are usually cloaked in vague and ambiguous language. Even then it is generally incoherent, contradictory, and internally inconsistent. This negative theology, anti-belief can be seen in their approach to Scripture, especially the New Testament. They have a hermeneutic that is best described as “it doesn’t really mean what it says.” They try to overlay their negative theology onto Scripture itself.

                    So is it any wonder that as you go through the threads on this board you will find that Oneness seem loathed to explain their beliefs and answer your questions? Is it any wonder they are so defensive that they are often “offensive?” You can see their negative theology and anti-doctrine in almost every thread when asking about Oneness beliefs as the Oneness believers invariably want to talk about the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least their misunderstanding of it. That is perhaps the other extraordinary distinctive about their negative theology and their anti-doctrine. They don’t really understand what they are disagreeing with, their own personal version will do. These are the things I find very unique about Oneness Pentecostals:

                    1. The fact that their “belief” system is actually negative theology and perhaps even more accurately, and anti-belief (this anti-belief, as explained above, is certainly their identity, the one true unifying “doctrine”).
                    2. As a group, they do not really know what they believe concerning the “Oneness” of the Father and the Son.
                    3. In their anti-belief they do not, as a rule, understand what they are arguing against but it doesn’t matter.

                    The mechanics of that are really quite fascinating when you think about it (not being able to explain what they really believe while claiming something they don’t understand is wrong).

                    TheLayman
                    I look in at the Apostolic Friends Forum from time to time even though I'm not registered there. Today I noted a thread begun by the same OP who wrote "what must we believe" (see above) years ago. Here is what he wrote followed by some of the responses:

                    Originally posted by OP1
                    I thought apostolics believed Jesus is the Father?
                    Seems I was mistaken? I keep running into people who identify as "apostolic" and "oneness" who nevertheless believe and teach "Jesus is not God", or that Jesus is NOT the Father, that he is only " indwelt" by Deity and is not Himself the Supreme Deity, and other similar types of things.

                    Did I get on the wrong bus? Should I get off ASAP?...

                    If he [Jesus] ain't the father, then he ain't God.
                    Originally posted by OP2
                    I know Jesus is the Father
                    I know Jesus is the Son
                    I know Jesus is the Holy Ghost
                    And all these three are One!
                    Originally posted by OP3
                    In this poll from 2011 54% of posters here denied Jesus is the Father.
                    Originally posted by Oneness Apologist Mike Blume
                    A person is not apostolic if they don't believe Jesus is the Father
                    Originally posted by Praxeas
                    Such polls are deceptive. By "Is Jesus the Father" do you mean "Is the Son the Father?"? To which even David Bernard recognizes the distinction.

                    When we say "Jesus is the Father", everyone else (Trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, Jews and Muslims) believe we are saying the Son is the Father without distinction
                    The first thing I note is that while nothing exists which defines Oneness orthodoxy, here are Oneness claiming something that defines Oneness orthodoxy, but also something which 54% of Oneness Pentecostals on their board disagreed with...hmmm.

                    Secondly, if a Trinitarian says:

                    The Father is God,
                    The Son is God,
                    The Holy Spirit is God,
                    and these three are one.

                    Oneness Pentecostals claim we are teaching three Gods. So to all of those Orthodox Oneness the question becomes if you teach:

                    The Father is Jesus,
                    The Son is Jesus,
                    The Holy Spirit is Jesus,
                    an these three are one.

                    Do you teach three that are Jesus? Then Praxeas, who at least used to post here says, "When we say 'Jesus is the Father', everyone else (Trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, Jews and Muslims) believe we are saying the Son is the Father without distinction" Of course as he used to get asked here a great deal, "distinction of what?" But apparently we can conclude the following from Praxeas:

                    Jesus is the Father
                    Jesus is the Son
                    Therefore the Father is the Son

                    Oh no, wait a minute, Praxeas actually says that the conclusion here is false! How is that? I guess we need specific definitions of the following words:

                    Jesus
                    the Father
                    the Son
                    God

                    And while there are numerous problems with all of this, not the least of which is that the Bible never calls the Father Jesus, look at how clearly and without any question "Orthodox Oneness" directly contradicts Scripture if they claim they only believe in ONE Jesus (which they will):
                    2 John 1:3 (NIV2011)

                    3 Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love.
                    So you have ONE Jesus who is the Father's Son (the Son) and is not the Father's Son (the Father) at the same time.

                    How about:
                    2 John 1:7 (NIV2011)

                    7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
                    So again, assuming Orthodox Oneness teach only ONE Jesus, then again their teaching is in direct contradiction with Scripture as Oneness then teaches that:

                    The one Jesus did (the Son) and did not (the Father) come in flesh at the same time.

                    Oneness is the most incoherent, contradictory, incoherent teaching I have ever come across.

                    TheLayman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheLayman View Post
                      I look in at the Apostolic Friends Forum from time to time even though I'm not registered there. Today I noted a thread begun by the same OP who wrote "what must we believe" (see above) years ago. Here is what he wrote followed by some of the responses:










                      The first thing I note is that while nothing exists which defines Oneness orthodoxy, here are Oneness claiming something that defines Oneness orthodoxy, but also something which 54% of Oneness Pentecostals on their board disagreed with...hmmm.

                      Secondly, if a Trinitarian says:

                      The Father is God,
                      The Son is God,
                      The Holy Spirit is God,
                      and these three are one.

                      Oneness Pentecostals claim we are teaching three Gods. So to all of those Orthodox Oneness the question becomes if you teach:

                      The Father is Jesus,
                      The Son is Jesus,
                      The Holy Spirit is Jesus,
                      an these three are one.

                      Do you teach three that are Jesus? Then Praxeas, who at least used to post here says, "When we say 'Jesus is the Father', everyone else (Trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, Jews and Muslims) believe we are saying the Son is the Father without distinction" Of course as he used to get asked here a great deal, "distinction of what?" But apparently we can conclude the following from Praxeas:

                      Jesus is the Father
                      Jesus is the Son
                      Therefore the Father is the Son

                      Oh no, wait a minute, Praxeas actually says that the conclusion here is false! How is that? I guess we need specific definitions of the following words:

                      Jesus
                      the Father
                      the Son
                      God

                      And while there are numerous problems with all of this, not the least of which is that the Bible never calls the Father Jesus, look at how clearly and without any question "Orthodox Oneness" directly contradicts Scripture if they claim they only believe in ONE Jesus (which they will):
                      2 John 1:3 (NIV2011)

                      3 Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love.
                      So you have ONE Jesus who is the Father's Son (the Son) and is not the Father's Son (the Father) at the same time.

                      How about:
                      2 John 1:7 (NIV2011)

                      7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
                      So again, assuming Orthodox Oneness teach only ONE Jesus, then again their teaching is in direct contradiction with Scripture as Oneness then teaches that:

                      The one Jesus did (the Son) and did not (the Father) come in flesh at the same time.

                      Oneness is the most incoherent, contradictory, incoherent teaching I have ever come across.

                      TheLayman
                      we do not need to give specifics, God's self revelation gives the specifics .

                      Besides,If the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Spirit is God all three are one or Jesus is the Father Jesus is the Son Jesus is the Holy Spirit all three are one.

                      In the words of the great theologian Hilary Clinton what difference does it make.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post
                        we do not need to give specifics, God's self revelation gives the specifics .

                        Besides,If the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Spirit is God all three are one or Jesus is the Father Jesus is the Son Jesus is the Holy Spirit all three are one.

                        In the words of the great theologian Hilary Clinton what difference does it make.
                        Either you do not really read what you are responding to or you read it and don't understand it. Either way it is impossible to communicate and reason with you.

                        BTW, since in the words of YOUR great theologian Hillary Clinton you don't "think" any of this makes any difference could you be enough of a gentlemen to simply stay out of my threads and let those of us who believe it does make a difference attempt to have a reasonable discussion? It would be much appreciated.

                        TheLayman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TheLayman View Post
                          Oneness Pentecostals claim we are teaching three Gods. So to all of those Orthodox Oneness the question becomes if you teach:

                          The Father is Jesus,
                          The Son is Jesus,
                          The Holy Spirit is Jesus,
                          an these three are one.

                          Do you teach three that are Jesus? Then Praxeas, who at least used to post here says, "When we say 'Jesus is the Father', everyone else (Trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, Jews and Muslims) believe we are saying the Son is the Father without distinction" Of course as he used to get asked here a great deal, "distinction of what?" But apparently we can conclude the following from Praxeas:

                          Jesus is the Father
                          Jesus is the Son
                          Therefore the Father is the Son
                          Hello TheLayman,

                          This is comical since its shows how hypocritical certain Oneness can be. They criticize the Trinity framework, but yet, displaying the same method in the Oneness framework. Why can't Oneness be genuine and stop borrowing from our world view? They might as well be Trinitarians and drop the gig of Jesus Only concept. Since the Jesus Only concept is actually a Category Error. Especially the second one which is a syllogism shows the same category error of Jesus Only concept. The first premise is assumed (or superimposed as true) and not substantiated Scripturally. And the conclusion is unintelligible and a equivocation between the Father and the Son. It reminds me of the video I watched the other day in YouTube.

                          Interdenominational (Respecting all Churches by demonstrating the power of Biblical unity).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Binyawmene View Post
                            Hello TheLayman,

                            This is comical since its shows how hypocritical certain Oneness can be. They criticize the Trinity framework, but yet, displaying the same method in the Oneness framework. Why can't Oneness be genuine and stop borrowing from our world view? They might as well be Trinitarians and drop the gig of Jesus Only concept. Since the Jesus Only concept is actually a Category Error. Especially the second one which is a syllogism shows the same category error of Jesus Only concept. The first premise is assumed (or superimposed as true) and not substantiated Scripturally. And the conclusion is unintelligible and a equivocation between the Father and the Son. It reminds me of the video I watched the other day in YouTube.

                            I hadn't seen this one before but after watching for just a couple of minutes I said to myself, "This is a Limey Bob production," and sure enough, it was made by Robert Skinner, aka Limey Bob. Here is one of my favorites:
                            Ray Stevens explains Oneness Theology/Christology

                            I'd also like to make one of those productions with an expanded version of The Oneness Pentecostal God has Amnesia

                            On a serious note (and using the funny stuff as my reason for saying this) I cannot understand why Oneness don't take this to heart and make it a priority to explain things in a way that makes their true beliefs clear and understandable even if it means they have to admit they are teaching more than one person. Why would you prefer to claim that your orthodox teaching and belief is incoherent contradictory doublespeak doubletalk gibberish? Of course the answer is in this thread and it is because their identity is being anti-Trinitarian and claiming the Father and the Son are the same one person and to do otherwise is to lose that identity...so cult think/check your brain at the door kicks in.

                            TheLayman
                            Last edited by TheLayman; 09-12-15, 02:48 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Aeg4371 View Post
                              we do not need to give specifics, God's self revelation gives the specifics .

                              Besides,If the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Spirit is God all three are one or Jesus is the Father Jesus is the Son Jesus is the Holy Spirit all three are one.

                              In the words of the great theologian Hilary Clinton what difference does it make.

                              Please explain what you mean by this "we do not need to give specifics, God's self revelation gives the specifics ."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X