click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?
by Rob BowmanOctober 20th, 2008
Be First to Comment
This is the first post in an occasional series that will appear on this blog, dealing with frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the doctrine of the Trinity. This series will not be providing an overview of the biblical teaching concerning the Trinity. For such an overview, please see my outline study on the Trinity, which cites about a thousand pertinent biblical references. If you have a question on the Trinity not addressed in that outline study and that you would like to see answered here, please email us with your question, and we will consider it for inclusion here. You can find our email address by visiting our ministry’s home page and clicking on “Email” in the upper right corner.
The first question I will address is perhaps one of the most popular objections to the doctrine, even though it does not address the positive evidence for the Trinity in Scripture. Here it is: If belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation, why is the doctrine not clearly or plainly set out, in so many words, in the Bible? Why does the Bible never say “God is a Trinity” or “There are three persons in the one God,” or something equally explicit as an affirmation of the doctrine? And if no such statement is there in the Bible, how can belief in the doctrine be essential for salvation?
The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation. There is no theology exam on which a person needs a passing score before God will accept that person’s trust in him for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace through faith, that is, through our trust and reliance on God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:5-8). On the other hand, deviation from the basics of sound Christian doctrine can be evidence that a person is either immature in faith (see Acts 18:25-26) or has not genuinely come into a saving faith relationship with Christ (Rom. 16:17-18). Resistance to doctrinal correction would generally be a tip-off that the latter problem is the case.
That having been said, what does the Bible tell us we need to know about the Trinity? Obviously, it does not tell us that we need to use words like Trinity or formulas like three persons in one God. These do not appear in the Bible. On the other hand, we are expected to make a faith commitment to the three persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as is evident from the injunction to make disciples by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Someone who denies that the Son is a divine person or who refuses to honor the Son with religious devotion, reverence, and worship, is giving evidence that he or she has not made that faith commitment and so has not yet come to a genuine relationship with the Son. Jesus himself stated, “Unless you believe that I am [he], you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). This means, minimally, that we must accept Jesus for who he really is if we are to be assured of salvation. So, if Jesus is indeed God incarnate, as the Bible does in fact teach, then we need to know and accept this truth about his identity.
Those who are saved as Christian believers, then, will have faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God, although they may not be able to articulate this in a doctrinal way very well at first. As they come to understand what the Bible says about this subject in conversation with the rest of the church, such believers normally will assent to the doctrine of the Trinity as the church’s historic and best articulation of the divine nature and relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If a person rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, that person has cut himself off from the church. It is interesting to note that all of the major (and as far as I know all of the minor) heretical religious versions of Christianity agree on one thing: they all reject the doctrine of the Trinity. This does seem to be the crucial, decisive theological issue separating orthodox from heretical forms of Christianity. Is it possible for someone in a non-Trinitarian religious group to be saved? I suppose it is, but it isn’t recommended. Again, doctrinal error may be a sign of spiritual lostness, or of spiritual immaturity, or perhaps of some other type of problem, and we aren’t in a position to judge definitively whether other people are saved or not. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to take a stand for the integrity of the church’s teaching, and cannot compromise on so basic a doctrine as the Trinity. We can do so with full confidence that what we are defending is biblical, because all of the essential elements of the doctrine of the Trinity are clearly taught in the Bible.
This is from my new blog. Feel free to visit.
Similar Posts:
- Heresies: Subordinationalism – A Lesser Christ
- "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
- The Great Trinity Debate Challenge
- The Great Trinity Debate: An Introduction
- In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? B: The Father Is Greater than All
Loading ...
178 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob,
I’m not sure where to go with this, as you seem to have given a nice synopsis of the situation. Sure, the Trinity is there to see, and is sound doctrine. The basics of salvation don’t include it, so no, belief in the Trinity doesn’t really have any part of the salvation requirements.
I can’t see the thief on the cross understanding the Trinity, what he understood was his own sinful condition, and the perfection and innocence of the King crucified next to him. He acknowledged his condition and called on the Lord for deliverance. Case closed, soul saved.
That’s the short version, but It seems like enough for me.
Like or Dislike:
0
“”On the other hand, deviation from the basics of sound Christian doctrine can be evidence that a person is either immature in faith (see Acts 18:25-26) or has not genuinely come into a saving faith relationship with Christ (Rom. 16:17-18). Resistance to doctrinal correction would generally be a tip-off that the latter problem is the case.”"
Just out of couriosity, can you tell me what “doctrine” they taught to the earlier christians” Now before you put yourself in contempt of the Scriptures, you were not there when these letters were written, so you would be lie-ing to say that Paul taught them trinity……Correct? Also, can you prove Scripturally that this[yours] is the “”correct doctrine”" that Paul and the Apostles taught? – i do not think so…
And it is judging another to say that they are immature as to Growth, especially if they chose not to believe in the doctrine of the trinity. Which has its roots in the blood of the early church and christians, yet claiming it was a revelation from God ‘after’ the Scriptures were written, Resistance to ‘doctrinal correction’ as you put it, is a way short of saying that “if you do not believe like me, you are not saved” – who gave you this right? Surely not God?
Like or Dislike:
0
Good read. I’m currently in the midst of trying to think this topic through. The city in which I pastor in has a strong Oneness Pentecostal “stronghold” and I have had quite a few people ask me this very question.
Historically I’ve had a major concern about Modalism and had previously come to the conclusion that it would be highly unlikely to deny the Trinity and be “saved.” However, after having a good discussion with a friend, it was pointed out that the major issue within the Oneness Pentecostal stream is actually related to soteriology. The emphasis on ‘works righteousness’ and the emphasis on tongues required for salvation are more problematic than not believing in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Anyway, I’m still trying to figure out a good answer for this question. I really appreciated when Bowman states, “e have a responsibility to take a stand for the integrity of the church’s teaching, and cannot compromise on so basic a doctrine as the Trinity.”
Thanks for this read. I look forward to further thoughts…
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom wrote: “I can’t see the thief on the cross understanding the Trinity. What he understood was … the perfection and innocence of the King crucified next to him. He … called on the Lord for deliverance.”
Tom ~ Perhaps it could be argued that the thief on the cross did understand the Trinity (or at least the Binity), not by formulating the doctrine in explicit words but rather by his disposition to Jesus. Since he understood that the man on the cross next to him was a king and was perfectly innocent like no other human being, and since he called on that man for deliverance rather than on God directly, what does that imply about the thief’s estimation of who Jesus was? Surely whoever we call upon for help in the moment of our extreme need (e.g. at the point of death) is God to us, whether we explicitly address that person as ‘God’ or not. Therefore, is it not fair to say that the thief did believe in the Trinity, if you use the word ‘believe’ in the biblical sense which is more than mere cognitive assent to a doctrine? Although he had not yet joined up all the dots to formulate a tidy articulated formula of the Trinity and he did not yet consciously recognise the radical repercussions that his cry to Jesus had on traditional Jewish montheism, he did live in the truth of the Trinity while hanging on the cross.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation. There is no theology exam on which a person needs a passing score before God will accept that person’s trust in him for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace through faith, that is, through our trust and reliance on God’s gift of salvation in Christ.”
Hi Rob
Many thanks for your very clear and lucid explanation. I love the paragraph above. I think we can so subtly easily fall into the trap of believing that a person’s salvation is based purely on doctrinal accuracy rather than by God’s grace through faith.
Hi Luke
“Good read. I’m currently in the midst of trying to think this topic through. The city in which I pastor in has a strong Oneness Pentecostal “stronghold” and I have had quite a few people ask me this very question.”
Hope you don’t mind, but could you enlighten me a bit more on the “Oneness Pentecostal” theology. It’s not something I know too much about!
Like or Dislike:
0
RB ~ Although you addressed post #2 to Robert Bowman I hope you don’t mind if I respond to you too?
I think God revealed the doctrine of the Trinity in the teaching of the Lord Jesus as well as in the NT epistles. This revelation did not consist of a systematic treatise on the subject (such as Robert Bowman’s book “Putting Jesus in His Place”) but as fragmentary allusions in word & deed. All the raw data for the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Gospels, even without considering the extra evidence in the NT epistles. Understandably it took a long time for the early church to grasp the implications of this man Jesus of Nazareth assuming divine prerogatives*. But the gradual evolution of the formal doctrine of the Trinity is not a case of the early church fabricating a heresy but of clarifying & articulating something that was already active in their thoughts about Jesus and in their actions towards him. By stumbling towards a refined formal definition of the Trinity the early church was not adding to Jesus’ teaching but entering more thoroughly into it.
* Examples of Jesus assuming divine prerogatives:
He expected his followers to deny themselves and relinquish everything for his sake. He did not merely show people how to live (which is what a prophet would do) but he called people to devote themselves to him and to give him their ultimate allegiance. He claimed to be the one who will judge all people and decide their eternal destiny. He claimed that the basis of his judgment will not be people’s works or service but their relationship with him. He described the ultimate punishment as eternal separation from himself. He claimed to be the only thing which will truly satisfy a man’s soul. He invited people to depend on him for peace, rest, joy, strength, and everything else needed to cope with life. To depend on someone as your ultimate helper, provider, and guardian is de facto treating that being as your God, whether you call him God or not. The message of the prophets such as Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah was: “Come to God. Follow God. Obey God.” But Jesus’ message was thoroughly egocentric: “Come to me. Follow me. Obey me.” etc. etc.
Why didn’t Jesus explicitly claim “I am God”? I think for several reasons.
(1) To avoid premature arrest and execution.
(2) Some of his self-disclosure had a ‘time-release’ nature (e.g. see Matthew 17:9).
(3) Instead of spoon-feeding people with explicit doctrine, he could communicate the truth more effectively by presenting evidence indirectly and leaving people to join the dots together for themselves to form the right conclusion (cf. Matthew 11:2-6). This method forces people to think through the ramifications and significance of the issue instead of just parroting a creed superficially.
(4) It would have misled and confused his monotheistic Jewish hearers because they did not yet understand that God is more than one person and so they would have naturally assumed Jesus was claiming to be God the Father.
(5) In coming to earth Jesus relinquished his legitimate claim to the prestige God is entitled to. His focus was to demonstrate self-humbling, submission, obedience, and a servant-like spirit, and so it would be incongruous for him to trumpet his deity.
(6) If Jesus’ contemporaries had regarded him prior to his crucifixion as the awesome, transcendent God, they would not have treated him as a human being (e.g. they would not have dared rub shoulders with him or recline at table with him to share a meal). Jesus had to tread a very fine line in not letting his deity eclipse his humanity. His humanity was essential to him fulfilling his role as our high priest.
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil – no problem! Oneness Pentecostalism is radically different from general Pentecostals for numerous reasons. Groups such as the Assemblies of God or the Foursquare Church hold to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and believe in Justification by grace through faith (though in the Arminian sense).
Oneness Pentecostals do not believe that God is in three persons but would emphasize that God manifested Himself as the Father, Jesus, and now the Holy Spirit. Ultimately they deny the preexistence of God the Son and believe that Jesus is the Father.
There is also a serious emphasis on speaking in tongues as being more than just the initial sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, as classic Pentecostalism has stressed. In the Oneness view, speaking in tongues is a necessary component to salvation. Furthermore, within the ranks it is very clear that ‘works’ plays a large role within how one is viewed.
Of course, these are simply what I have read through the writings of Oneness theologian David Bernard, Greg Boyd’s Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Robert Morey’s The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, E. Calvin Beisner’s “Jesus Only” Churches, and James White’s The Forgotten Trinity. I should also mention that several people within the congregation that I serve and lead have come out of a Oneness background and I’m currently involved in relationships with people who are in the Oneness stream. We’ve had some interesting conversations
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheers for the info Luke. Much appreciated.
“I should also mention that several people within the congregation that I serve and lead have come out of a Oneness background and I’m currently involved in relationships with people who are in the Oneness stream. We’ve had some interesting conversations”
Sounds like fun(!), but I guess it must be draining at times!
Spending quite a lot of time with folks in charismatic circles I have come across the emphasis on tongues being essential to salvation before, which I have never bought into and don’t expect I ever will! It is really interesting to hear that some people have come out of the movement to share the more traditional orthodox view! I guess the baggage carried can be pretty difficult to wade through at times.
I hail from Pentecostal stock on my mother’s grandfather’s side of the family and our church has very close links with a local AOG fellowship, though they are of the more Orthodox Pentecostal type.
“Furthermore, within the ranks it is very clear that ‘works’ plays a large role within how one is viewed.”
I don’t have a problem with this so long as good works are seen as evidence of salvation rather than a means to salvation!
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
Yeah, sounds like you and I have similar convictions. I am Charismatic in the “Third-wave” sense (e.g. Vineyard movement). I speak in tongues but have a different view of it in comparison with classic Pentecostals. I reject it as being the “initial evidence” and certainly do not believe it is required for salvation. In my view it is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit… sovereignly distributed by the Lord, though I believe we are encouraged to pray to have these gifts.
Yeah, I’m getting off topic. I apologize. I am Trinitarian and Charismatic and Reformed. Yee ha!
Like or Dislike:
0
The best explanation for the Trinity I have found is in:
“Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Chapt 29, pg 594-595
Argument for God being a plurality of persons:
“God is by definition* the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must be giving himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of his nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to his essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created person exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God himself.
In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as Unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the Unitarian view God is a person who does not give himself away essentially in love for another; he is focused essentially only on himself. Hence , he cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self giving love relationship. Thus since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the trinity is more plausible than any Unitarian doctrine of God.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
I am an Oneness Pentecostal. Some of your description accurately portrayed what I would term the “layman’s perspective” within the OP movement, but it does not accurately portray the more official, “scholarly perspective” of the movement.
It is true that Oneness Pentecostals do not believe God is three persons. We believe God is one person, and Jesus Christ is that one personal God incarnate. So it’s misleading to say we “deny the preexistence of God the Son.” We simply do not believe there is any such person as God the Son. We affirm the preexistence of Christ’s deity, but understand that preexistent person to be the one, uni-personal God, YHWH, not the second of three eternal persons. This is the universal understanding of both laymen and scholar alike.
Also, by saying OPs believe God has manifested Himself as Father, Jesus, and now the Holy Spirit, this implies that we are Sabellians. This is not true. No OPs (probably not even Sabellius himself) believe God has successively revealed Himself as Father, then Son, and now Spirit. God has always been Holy Spirit.
Also, as an OP, I would never say Jesus is the Father (though many laymen speak in such a way). I would say Jesus’ deity is numerically and personally identical to that of the Father. This is a big distinction. Clearly there is a distinction between the Father and Son, but Oneness Pentecostals do not see this distinction as personal in nature (two divine persons), but rather incarnational (a distinction between God’s existence as God, and that same God’s existence as man).
As for tongues, it’s not true that OPs claim tongues is a necessary component of salvation, although I understand how this conception has developed. OPs claim the same thing Evangelicals claim: Being filled with the Spirit is necessary for salvation. But OPs are persuaded that when people are filled with the Spirit, they will speak in tongues. No one thinks the evidence of the Spirit is what saves (tongues), but the substance to which the evidence points (the infilling of the Spirit). Just as smoke gives evidence of the presence of fire, tongues gives evidence of the Spirit. So it’s not that OPs think tongues is necessary for salvation, but rather that tongues will necessarily be present when one has received the saving Spirit.
As for works, I know firsthand that many OPs struggle with legalism (as do many holiness movements), but I also know that this is not the official teaching of OPs. The official teaching is that one is saved by grace through faith. Could you find OPs who say different? Sure, just as I could find Trinitarians who say different. There is often a divide between the guiding theology of a movement as represented in its scholars, and the way it is understood and/or represented by pastors and laymen. But one’s critique of a theology or movement needs to be directed at both its scholars and common practitioners. While the common practitioners within Oneness Pentecostalism are often guilty of some of the things you described (and you would not be wrong to point that out), this is not true of Oneness Pentecostalism as a theological system itself.
Like or Dislike:
0
Phil McCheddar,
Thanks for the reply.yet i read words like ‘allusion’ ‘assumimg’ ‘evolution’ and they tend to make me read your direct reply as such, an assumption.
Yet, you stated nothing in regards to the history that embeds the doctrine, before it was an historically ‘forced’ doctrine. Yes, i did say ‘forced’. Many died at the hands and the command of the initiators of this doctrine, but we do not want to admit this do we?. They were disemboweled so to speak, beheaded, etc., etc., and all this at the Name of God as a ‘God revealed” doctrine. This seems right to you, that today we resemble the same attutide in saying that one is not ‘saved’ immature’ and possibly a ‘heretic’ because they will not ‘follow the same belief’ as yourself?
So i ask you, you support what has its roots in an all out blood-bath against the Worshippers of God just to support and incorporate into the ‘church’ what man ‘believes’ is the “”correct doctrine”"?
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
You have claimed twice that many people were killed at the behest of those who initiated the doctrine of the Trinity, but this is simply false. The theologians who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity did so in the second, third, and fourth centuries, before the Christian church had any power whatsoever to execute anyone. Even in later centuries, when European governments were officially Christian and in some cases executed heretics, the number of people who were executed simply for denying the doctrine of the Trinity was quite small (though one was too many).
In any case, your criticism is unhelpful if you don’t tell us what you think the church ought to teach in place of the doctrine of the Trinity. To what religious group do you belong? What is your view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? “I know what you are against; what are you for?” (that’s Emile deBecque’s line in the play South Pacific).
Like or Dislike:
0
IndioAtuey, the argument you present for the Trinity based on God’s loving nature shows a cogent picture, but it’s not convincing and there are other possibilities. The purpose of love and the result of love are creation—creation of new life. Creation is not an accident, nor need it be a willful act done simply for His own pleasure. It is a logical and natural extension of His loving essence. I see no evidence for the Trinity there.
An argument is sometimes given that everything God does is for His own pleasure. That brings to mind a self-centered monarch who thinks his subjects and domain exist for himself alone, but it is contrary to God’s nature of love. Jesus, the humble servant, taught us quite a different aspect of God.
We are dealing here in an area with little or no evidence in Scripture or nature. Who is to say that our universe is the only creation that the eternal God ever made? He may have other brides too.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob,
Lets start with a document that pre-dates the Nicene Counsel that made claim to the doctrine and that stated that it ‘MUST’ be beilieved in, Athanasian Creed. I direct your attention to line 28 which states:
28. Qui vult ergo salvos esse, ita de trinitate sentiat.
28. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
You see, here, well before the Council of Nicene it was a “”must” to believe in this doctrine, even today just by your blog and reply – you even stated that some were executed for “heresies” thus being related to this doctrine as well, you are insistant that one “must” believe in it to be saved.
Yet i ask you show me this in the Scriptures? That i must believe in the doctrine to be saved, my Bible does not state this nor does it teach this…..Why do you?
Like or Dislike:
0
sorry for the second, i missed the timer….
As to teaching… do not teach it and just leave it be. why teach a doctrine that has so much controversy embedded within its context that many are divided and churches are divided. It seems apparent to methat should God had wanted it to be taught and practiced then it would be in a Unified Glorification to Christ our Beloved Redeemer and to God our Almighty Heavenly Father.
Why teach and support divisions to the Unity of the Body of Christ?
Like or Dislike:
0
RB, all dogma will cause divisions. Who is Christ? Don’t you think people have divided over this? What books belong in the Bible? Have they divided here? Who’s is Christ? Isn’t this a point of division?
In the end, you are going to have to have no dogma whatsoever to side-step divisions, great or small. In fact, aren’t you causing division by not affirming the Trinity here on this blog?
In truth, you have ever right and obligation to act and believe according to your conscious. No one here is going to fault you (or kill you!). But to argue that a major reason why the Trinity is wrong because it causes divisions is just beyond that type of argument’s ability to prove or even lend credence toward.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello RB
If your love for Jesus makes your love for yourself seem like hatred in comparison, and if you have relinquished everything for Jesus’ sake, and if you honor Jesus as highly as you honor Almighty God, and if you thank Jesus’ executive decision for your salvation, and if you depend ultimately on Jesus to satisfy your soul and give you peace, rest, joy, ability, etc., and if knowing Jesus is an indispensable part of experiencing eternal life, then you are de facto worshipping him as your God, whether you call him God or not.
And if you believe the Holy Spirit’s instructions to the Apostles consisted of relaying information which He (the Spirit) heard from God (see John 16:13), and if you believe the Holy Spirit sometimes intercedes to God through your prayers (see Romans 8:27), then you de facto regard the Holy Spirit as a distinct ‘person’ from God the Father.
And if you believe the Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of God, then I don’t see how you can regard the Holy Spirit as an entity other than the uncreated eternal divine being.
So if you say ‘Yes’ to all the above ‘if’ clauses, I would say you believe in the Trinity whether you say you do or not.
I understood Rob Bowman to be saying that as a young Christian grows in knowledge and understanding of what the Bible teaches, he will be increasingly likely to affirm all the ‘if’ clauses listed above, in which case it follows that he will be increasingly likely to recognise that the essence of the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical.
I think you confuse alluding & implying with assuming & fabricating, but they are not the same.
Like or Dislike:
0
MP,
well i am impressed that you answer this and not rob, yet i am not against it causing divisions for it has from the very beginning, i debate that it is Scripturally correct in that from the beginning of its conception it is imputed as a “must” for Salvation – Wrong!
And i would think that you of all people would know this………but then again i could be wrong about you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Phil McCheddar,
True, I cannot deny what you have wrote, but I do not attribute this to a ‘trinity’ as you ‘assume’ and ‘allude’ to. Although, they may be attributed to ‘if’ clauses, they are for the most part Scriptural statements.
Yet in John 16:13, how do you ‘know’ that what you say of a ‘trinity’ is Truth, beit that you [probably] as well as many see this ‘doctrine’ as a ‘must’ for Salvation, which need I remind you is not Scriptural nor any where near Biblicallly correct in this implication or statement? To imply that one needs to believe in this formulated doctrine in order to receive Salvation has made man the supplier of Salvation and not that of God.
As to Ro 8:27, lets put v26, v28 back and re-read the short excerpt correctly. The Spirit, as an intercessor before the Throne for us, actually helps in our mis-guided and mis-conceived prayers to the Almighty Father above. Why? Because He that searches the hearts of men knows the mind of Spirit doing so in Accordance to the Will of God, so that by this we will know everything works to Gods Glory and purpose.
Then I can see proper interpretation, to that of the Spirit being our helper in our petitions to the Almighty Father. Yet this short passage say’s nothing as to what you claim in it being a ‘trinity’, but rather helping us to understand the relationship between the Father, the Intercessory work of the Spirit, in regards to our relationship with the Father as being His children.
So I would take your statement:
“….in which case it follows that he will be increasingly likely to recognise that the essence of the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical.”
That should they not, then you and your brethren would claim that he is not saved? Or, you and your brethren would take purposeful steps to “teach” him this ‘doctrine’.
“I think you confuse alluding & implying with assuming & fabricating, but they are not the same.”
So then why do you use these terms interchangeably to explain what is claimed to be unexplainable? You yourself used ‘assume’ or are you saying now that you are ’alluding’?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason Dulle,
First off, thank you for your contribution and response! I appreciate how gentle and irenic your tone was, and I hope and pray that my initial comments did not come across any different. That being said, I have several questions for you, since you’re the resident Oneness voice
Interesting. Could you provide me with some names and references that would be of the more scholarly perspective. Thus far I have managed to only gather up a few books clearly written for the “layman” and several of David Bernard’s contributions. Bernard does not appear to write with much scholastic “weight,” so I’d like to be directed to other sources if you could! The more academic, the better!
That being said, what concern is there within the movement that there seems to be such a large disconnect between the “scholarly perspective” and the “layman’s perspective,” assuming there is this disconnect? I have had conversations with Oneness Pastors and they have generally reflected exactly what I had previously described!
While I would agree that many Trinitarian “laymen” may not be able to explain the doctrine of the Trinity as clearly as those of us with formal educations and clearly defined terms, I’ve not heard or encountered a lot of people who could not sum up the doctrine rather well. Obviously there are some exceptions here and there… but you probably understand my point. I’d love to read your thoughts!
While I would disagree with the Oneness position, I must again stress that I’ve been told by several Oneness Pastors what I had expressed. There has always been what I sensed an emphasis on the Father in the past, Jesus the Son during His earthly ministry, and the work of the Spirit in the present age (while maintaining that Jesus was and is the Father and the Spirit). Perhaps I’ve misunderstood. I realize that you clarify this point and would disagree with those who state that Jesus is the Father… but I certainly have heard it expressed that way.
Well, as I previously stated, I’ve “been there, done that” in the sense of a Pentecostal background (I did 3.5 years of my undergrad in the AOG). What seems quite clear, though, is that essentially tongues is equated as being necessary for salvation!
You may communicate it differently (as it appears you do), but what the vast majority of folks I know and talk to (and have read) seem to be hearing is that tongues is necessary for salvation. As far as I can tell, there is very little emphasis on Justification in the historic Protestant sense (by grace through faith). Are there any well known works within the Oneness tradition that address this?
The same issues seem to arise in relation to water baptism. While I’m not one who holds to the belief that baptism is purely symbolic, I certainly would reject baptismal rejection. Where do Oneness folks stand?
My concern with both of these beliefs is (a) biblical, (b) theological, and (c) practical. In the communities that I have been in, I have yet to meet a Oneness Pentecostal who communicated the Gospel apart from stressing speaking in tongues and baptism in Jesus name. I guess my primary concern goes right to the heart of the matter: are Oneness Pentecostals born-again or are they deceived with a ‘works-righteousness’ effort? To be faith, I have the same concern about a lot of Protestants
Your last paragraph was very interesting to read. It sounds like you have been a “maverick” (pun intended) within the Oneness tradition! I was actually unaware of any Oneness scholars, so that has me hungry to read! Any direction you could give would be much appreciated.
Related to this issue: what kind of training do most Oneness pastors receive? Is formal education a significant step or is it more in line with most Pentecostal movements that seem to stress more of what I call “Spirit training” than academic?
Jason, once again I want to thank you for your response and I hope my response comes across in a way that simply communicates to you that I have many questions and lots of ideas that may or may not be correct. Actually, I think a lot of us Evangelicals (Charismatic and non) are interested in learning more about what Oneness theology is
Blessings,
Luke
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello RB
Contrary to what you assume about me, I don’t think “one needs to believe in this formulated doctrine in order to receive salvation”, nor would I “take purposeful steps to teach this [formulated] doctrine” to a professing Christian who denied it.
My references to John 16:13 and Romans 8:27 were a very brief attempt to use the Bible to show that the Holy Spirit is not merely a personification of an impersonal entity, unlike the lady called Wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8.
Romans 8:27 says the Holy Spirit intercedes to the Father for us. It seems difficult to understand this as figurative language in which an impersonal attribute of God is being personified since intercession is a form of communication between two centres of consciousness. It also rules out the idea that “the Spirit” is merely an alias for God the Father. See also Revelation 22:17.
John 16:13 describes the Holy Spirit hearing information from God/Jesus and passing it on to the apostles. Again such a statement seems absurd if the Spirit is merely an impersonal attribute of God or an alias of God.
I think the formal definitions of the Trinity do not purport to be a final and definitive statement about what God is. Any God who could be so packaged would be an idol. What they aim to do instead is to cut off blind alleys. So when the very first Christological heresy (Docetism) turned up it was condemned – not because the Church enjoyed philosophical logic-chopping but because you cannot speak with integrity about Christ without speaking about his humanity. The point about orthodoxy is that it is a doxa. It is about right worship and we cannot worship God properly unless we can speak about Him with some kind of integrity. The various heresies which cropped up prevented such speech & worship in the eyes of the Church and were therefore condemned.
The creeds of the early church and modern statements of faith were hammered out mainly as a defensive reaction against the threat of heresy rather than as a proactive proclamation of the truth. Therefore they tend to consist of caveats against misunderstandings of trinitiarian thought instead of giving a comprehensive, balanced view of God. So they are more of a negative statement of what God is not (e.g. tritheism), rather than a positive statement of what God is.
Personally I find many formal statements of the Trinity doctrine unsatisfactory because they do not (in my opinion) give enough weight to the subordination of the Son & the Spirit to the Father. But I still believe that both the Son and the Spirit are uncreated and eternally co-existent with God the Father, and I believe Father and Son and Spirit have relationships one with the other, and I only worship one God.
I am sorry but I don’t follow what you are saying in your last paragraph.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, Phil,
Interesting, so if you do not feel comfortable than why the long dialogue to persuade me? if you do not feel or believe properly persuaded youself.
As for me:[i burrow your statement with a few corrections which i believe you will notice]
I believe that the Spirit is uncreated and exists with God the Father, and I believe Father and Son and Spirit have relationships one with the other, and I only worship one God and that is the true God, God is a Spirit and they that worship Him worship Him in spirit and in Truth.
The Scriptures do not teach us to worship any other, nor do they teach us to worship Christ other than in acknowledgement that He is the Lamb worthy to be slain….
Like or Dislike:
0
I am just starting to study more on the Trinity, as a child we are taught about God and Jesus and as an adult I though that this was two people and not one. I guess it is kind a hard to grasp because oin John 3:16 it says that God gave his only begotten Son, so how did he begot this Son if in fact this was himself. and when Christ was on the cross he was to have said why have thee forsaken me . which brings another point on if he was God then who forsake him?
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
Thank you for the compliment.
I would suggest you read Daniel Segraves, as well as my own writings for a slightly different perspective from what you might read in Bernard, or others. And let me add that Oneness theology is not monolithic (I regret even using the word “official” in my post to you). There is considerable variability among Oneness adherents on various issues, including Christology. What we hold in common is that God is uni-personal, and that Jesus Christ is that one uni-personal God incarnate.
Yes, there is a concern among the “intelligencia” of the movement concerning the way Oneness theology is often understood by laymen, and pastors alike (most of whom are seriously lacking in theological education). But I think our situation is roughly parallel to your own. I have heard several Trinitarian scholars lament the disconnect between the academy and the pews when it comes to understanding the Trinity. My Trinitarian theology professor in seminary, James Sawyer, himself lamented how 99% of professing Trinitarians do not understand the Trinity—they tend to be either tritheists or modalists. And yet those same people would use the Trinitarian buzzwords of three persons and one essence.
I do not doubt that you have heard some of the things you say! I once heard a fellow Oneness believer tell me Jesus is not the Son of God (thinking that saying so was “Trinitarian”). But for all the goofiness I have heard in my life, I have never heard any Oneness believer say God was only Father at time t1, then only Son at time t2, and now only Holy Spirit.
As for tongues, I don’t doubt that many fail to make the distinction I have made. They reason that if tongues is the universal evidence of the Spirit, and you have to have the Spirit to be saved, then you have to speak in tongues to be saved. Their logic is practical, rather than…well…logical. The fact remains that tongues would not be the cause of salvation, but merely evidence of the salvation brought about by the Spirit’s infilling (the real cause).
You are right when you say there are not many people speaking about justification in Oneness ranks. But I have seen a big shift in the last 10 years. The most notable public figure (and scholar) is Daniel Segraves.
When it comes to baptism, we believe baptism is part of regeneration. We do not believe baptism is efficacious in itself (like Catholics do), but only through faith in the operation of God.
Yes, I am a bit of a maverick within our ranks! I would say I reflect the newer, emerging face of the Oneness movement. I have received little negative feedback on my doctrinal expositions from other Oneness adherents, particularly regarding theology proper, Christology, and justification—so while I am a maverick of sorts, I am seen as fully part of the Oneness tradition.
I don’t have any official stats to go off of, but anecdotally, I would say at least half of our ordained ministers have an A.A. or B.A. in theology (although prior to the last 10 years or so, most of the institutions from which they received these degrees would be better classified as ministerial training schools than theological studies programs). The rest simply read a series of doctrinal books required to be licensed. Historically speaking, Pentecostal movements have been quite anti-intellectual. They relied on “Spirit training” as you said. Things are beginning to change, however. For example, the UPCI opened its first graduate-level seminary about seven years ago. Education is being promoted a lot more these days, for which I am thankful.
I went to an Oneness college, as well as a Trinitarian seminary, so I got to hear the best of both sides. One thing I have found is that neither side really understands the other. Oneness adherents commonly accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods, or denying the full deity of Christ. Trinitarians commonly accuse Oneness adherents of denying the deity of Christ, confessing Sabellianism, or worse. One of my goals is to bring clarity to the debate, so I do my best to honestly and accurately represent the best of Trinitarian thinking to my fellow Oneness adherents, as well as represent the best of Oneness thinking to Trinitarians. Even if we never come to agree, at least we’ll be clear on what it is we disagree about, and why. Burning straw-men won’t help either side.
Like or Dislike:
0
I am just starting to study more on the Trinity, as a child we are taught about God and Jesus and as an adult I though that this was two people and not one. I guess it is kind a hard to grasp because oin John 3:16 it says that God gave his only begotten Son, so how did he begot this Son if in fact this was himself. and when Christ was on the cross he was to have said why have thee forsaken me . which brings another point on if he was God then who forsake him?
Well Maggie,
Its been almost a week and still they have not answered you and they most likely will not.
For, there are many things that the trinitarian doctrine can not answer by the Scriptures, but it makes claim that are “alluded” “assume” or “plausible” by way of the Scriptures.
Yet many a trinitarian will lay claim to and usurpt the Authority of the Scriptures by claiming and stating that you are not saved should you not follow their way of belief, which is that you “must” believe in the trinity to be saved. but the Scriptures never teach this – man does.
Like or Dislike:
0
Maggie,
Since you say that you are just beginning to study more on the Trinity, I can sympathize with your confusion. I struggled with the doctrine myself when I first began to study it seriously (that was many years ago for me now!).
The Trinity does not teach that Jesus is the Son of himself, or that Jesus abandoned himself on the cross. When Jesus or the New Testament writers speak of “God” as someone distinct from Jesus, they are referring specifically to God the Father. The NT usually—not always—uses the divine title “God” in reference to the Father. However, the NT also affirms that Jesus is himself “God” (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; and elsewhere), meaning, not that Jesus is God the Father, but that Jesus, as the Son, is himself the divine Creator and Sustainer of the universe, deserving of boundless trust, worship, honor, praise, and glory.
I invite you to work through my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. It will help you understand why we believe in the Trinity. You can find it here:
http://www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
You obviously are familiar enough with the doctrine of the Trinity that you should have known that Maggie’s question has an answer from our point of view. If you didn’t know this, you should know it now after reading my response to her.
Your other criticisms are addressed in the series of posts I am doing on my blog:
http://www.religiousresearcher.org/blog/?s=Trinity
Next time, perhaps you will not conclude rashly from a four-day delay that someone has no answer.
By the way, up to now I have not bothered to respond to you further, because you never answered my question to you. We know that you are against the Trinity, but you have yet to tell us what you are for–that is, what religious belief you accept, and to what religious group you belong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rob,
So then whats your answer to maggie?
Did Jesus[God] pray to himself?
Did Jesus[God] give himself in Mary by Birth?
You say trinity does not teach that Jesus is the son of Himself which is correct. As a matter of fact the trinity does not even attempt to clearly define Jesus as the son pre-existent it just makes the claim “God the Son” mostly based on Scriptures after the Ressurection, to be totally accurate the OT never has God claiming to have a “Son” at all yet we do find that “a son will be born, Isaiah 7:14 – a son ‘shall’ be born.
Yet we read in Jn 3:16,17 that a “Son” is born, through Mary. Now we have a “Son”, the doctrine of the trinity seems to put the cart before the horse in stating that the “son is pre-existent”. Should this son existed prior to this then Jesus would have been born twice to be the ‘son’ of the trinity, as brought forth by the trinity.
Did Jesus[God] die on the Cross?
Post #2 – i asked you a couple of questions, you never answered.
Post #13 – you ask me my view on the Father, Son, Spirit. I answered by my reply to Phil = Post #23
Post #15 – again another question to you, you never answered.
catch up…..
Like or Dislike:
0
Trinity is a model, it is not therefore necessarily the best explanation, it is merely the best explanation that we have at present.
John did indeed place the origin of Jesus, the Word, in the beginning with God and went as far as to say that the word was God. We have here an early follower of Jesus (and a Jew) being willing to place Jesus alongside YHWH as the creator of all that is.
Jesus felt free to claim that he and his Father were one, to see him was to see the Father. In this he claimed to be the perfect representation of God’s authority on the Earth.
At Jesus’ baptism we see the Father speaking from heaven, Jesus coming out of the water, and the Spirit descending like a dove. This would at the very least indicate some differentiation between them.
The thing to differentiate is ontological and functional equality. That Jesus counted himself equal to the Father ontologically did not mean that he saw himself as functionally equal. I do what I see my Father doing. Without Him I can do nothing etc.
Although Rob doesn’t particularly like this illustration the Jews (in fact many ancient peoples) had the concept of a hypostasis. If you want to read about it try HERE. Philo himself proposed that the three visiting Abraham were God, His Wisdom, and His Royal Power.
People are saved through an acknowledgment of their moral failings, repentance and pledging their allegiance to Jesus. I do not think that a person needs a perfect understanding of Trinity in order to be saved.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry about the second post.
Trinity is a model, it is not therefore necessarily the best explanation, it is merely the best explanation that we have at present.
John did indeed place the origin of Jesus, the Word, in the beginning with God and went as far as to say that the word was God. We have here an early follower of Jesus (and a Jew) being willing to place Jesus alongside YHWH as the creator of all that is.
Jesus felt free to claim that he and his Father were one, to see him was to see the Father. In this he claimed to be the perfect representation of God’s authority on the Earth.
At Jesus’ baptism we see the Father speaking from heaven, Jesus coming out of the water, and the Spirit descending like a dove. This would at the very least indicate some differentiation between them.
The thing to differentiate is ontological and functional equality. That Jesus counted himself equal to the Father ontologically did not mean that he saw himself as functionally equal. Before Abraham was, I am. I do what I see my Father doing. Without Him I can do nothing etc.
However Jesus himself affirmed Shema, Shema yisra’el adonai eloheynu adonai ehad, which is itself an affirmation of the unity of God. It is the tension between the affirmed unity of God, and the claims Jesus made that set himself alongside God (and through his resurrection vindicated his claims, after all anyone can “claim” to be God) that led to the formulation of the doctrine of Trinity.
Although Rob doesn’t particularly like this illustration the Jews (in fact many ancient peoples) had the concept of a hypostasis. If you want to read about it try HERE. Philo himself proposed that the three visiting Abraham were God, His Wisdom, and His Royal Power. Ascribing attributes of God to the person of Wisdom was seen in Jewish literature long before Jesus arrived on the scene.
People are saved through an acknowledgment of their moral failings, repentance and pledging their allegiance to Jesus. I do not think that a person needs a perfect understanding of Trinity in order to be saved.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
I *did* answer Maggie’s questions. Jesus did not pray to himself and he is not his own Son. You already know this. Your purpose is to harass, not to ask honest questions. Your post #2 is a good example of such harassment. I have an outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity; instead of addressing the evidence I have already presented, you simply berate me for daring to hold the view I do.
You have not told us what you believe about Jesus Christ. And you have not yet answered my question as to your religious affiliation. Are you a Lone Ranger Christian, anonymously posting online challenges to other people’s faiths but having no faith in common with a community of believers? Assuming you’re right, where should we go?
If I don’t respond to you any further, which is entirely possible at this point, it is because I deem your comments to be no more constructive than what you have already posted up to this point.
Like or Dislike:
0
I believe that the Spirit is uncreated and exists with God the Father, and I believe Father and Son and Spirit have relationships one with the other, and I only worship one God and that is the true God, God is a Spirit and they that worship Him worship Him in spirit and in Truth.
The Scriptures do not teach us to worship any other, nor do they teach us to worship Christ other than in acknowledgement that He is the Lamb worthy to be slain….[from post #23 - you are not paying attention]
***********
Jn 1:1, does not say that ‘Jesus’ was with God, it states the Word. It also states the Word was God. Nothing in this verse indicates that ‘Jesus’ was preexistent nor that He was alive. You seem to read into the verse what is not there, ‘Jesus’ is not mention till later and that the “Word became Flesh” not “Jesus became flesh”….
Jn20:28, is after the Resurrection not before. So yes Thomas was correct is stating that ‘Jesus’ was the God that He worshipped for Now he has seen the Full Glory of God “exhibited’ through that of Christ.
Titus 2:13, yes this verse speaks of TWO, that of the GLORY of God as well as mentioning that Jesus Christ is the Savior- for it was Jesus that Died on the Cross and thus He is the Savior of the World.
2 Peter1:1, clearly states that Peter was an Apostle of Christ by the Righteousness of God “AND” our Savior, again this is speaking to the past tense of the Resurrection.
The Apostles were sent out just as Christ was sent out, Jn 17:18
Why do trinitarians take 1st/2nd Scriptures written to 1st/2nd Christians and think that they understand and know exactly what the writters were meaning.? Were you there?
Like or Dislike:
0
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Now you’re just being precious. Was Jesus called Jesus prior to being named by Mary and Joseph? Of course not. Did John mean Jesus? Well he seemed to be John’s primary subject. The Son needed no name while with his Father. Also, since there were no “verse distinctions” in the original text it’s a very poor thing to argue from. Introduce a subject, the Logos of God, introduce another, John the Baptist, tie them together while distinguishing between them. It’s a good literary technique.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
That’s John 10:25-33, an event that occurred long before Jesus was crucified. He made no bones about his claims, and his listeners certainly didn’t seem to believe he was claiming anything other than equality with YHWH.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself.
John 8:56-59, again pre-crucifixion. Again the standard response to blasphemy, that is the desire to stone him. Jesus was clearly understood to be claiming divine status.
As I said before the trinitarian model was constructed to explain the tension between the appearance of three individuals who could be titled God within Jewish monotheism. It isn’t necessarily the best model, but if you don’t like it you have to go and construct a model that explains all the available evidence, not just a few cherry-picked verses.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason,
you posted alot, but i see nothing that gives clear presentation in the Scriptures that the ‘son’ preexisted. Yet when you do you will also need to present his mother as being pre-existent as well.
So looking forward to reading those OT Scriptures where God state that He has a ‘Son’ before the ‘Son’ is born……Isaiah 7:14
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve really enjoyed your posts. I’m not nearly as qualified to comment but please allow my post. And comment, i’d like to learn more.
John 1 is about the logos, Is the logos the expression of God’s person or is it the word or plan of God ?
In the OT didn’t God reveal himself as the Angel of The Lord,
was this the father or possibly the logos? If the logos is the expression of God in whichever manisfestation, does this make a different person? We all agree that Jesus is the Logos and that he is God in flesh, and that he preexisted. The point of contention then was he the son before he was born of Mary? and in his preexistence was he a separate person than father and holy spirit.
If we are created in God’s image is it possible that God also has body soul and spirit, son father Holy spirit?
Can we communicate between our body soul and spirit?
david seemed to think so.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Word ” Trinity” do not have a Biblical Orgin and Bible Theologians know what I mean by Orgin.
Apostolic is not in the Bible but its the adjectival form of the noun Apostle so it has a Biblical Orgin.
To say, if a person don’t beleive in ” Trinity” they are not a Christian is a Lie and not the Truth . To say, if a person don’t beleive in what the bible say, Father , Son and Holy Ghost maybe they are not Christians.
Using extrabiblical terms is what causes so much confusion and disunity like God the Son, Eternal Son , second person in the God head , Third Person , co-eternal etc. etc. etc.
Also we need to watch how we use the Word ” Person ” etc.
Please go to this site and read concerning the Word ” person ”
http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/
Maybe they have the Math or equation wrong
is it possible instead of 1+1+1= 3
maybe its 1x 1x 1=1
God Bless you in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
Can I chime in here? I happen to be Pentecostal and have relatives on both sides of this coin so I have heard all the debates.
Oneness used to be called Jesus Only because they believe Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He is just one, and manifests Himself in three different ways depending on the situation or dispensation. They hold to more of a legalistic view, i.e. Women must wear their hair long and women can’t speak as pastors. But they are Pentecostal because they practice it.
Trinitarians believe in the fullness of the Godhead, three distinct individuals with different functions, but unified in Spirit and agreement. The Trinity is expressed in some churches as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, but they are indeed personages. They are more relaxed, women can wear short hair and pants and some accept women preachers and some accept women pastors.
Now to dissuade any argument over women pastors….there are situations that arise that women may be called upon to fill the office of pastor, but that should not be a debate here.
Oneness baptize in Jesus Name.
Trinitarians baptize in Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jbarg,
The Bible does not say the phrase “absolute truth” but we accept that is it anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kara and Jbarg,
There is no unity in God the Father and God the Son. For if there were, then God the Father and God the Son would have the same “will”, which when we read the Scriptures correctly they do not. Especially when we consider the trial of obedience in the Garden, Christ clearly exhibits a conflict of wills concenring the “Father” and the “Son”, yet we will consistently say that “Jesus is God”, should this statement have any real value then the Scirptures would give no conflicts concerning the clarity of the statement, nor would we find any that would put it in conflict of Nature.
But we do find conflict of mans decree and that of the Scriptures. If God is the Son and God is the Father then God is Both, that would assure us that the Will of God be exhibited by the Father and this Will would also be the same as the Son – but we can find in the Scriptures, especially in the Garden, that this is not so………
So if the Will of the Son WAS NOT the same as the Father, how is it the we will still contend that ‘Jesus is God’ – ?
Like or Dislike:
0
You do get things the wrong way around.
The Son is God and the Father is God. Not vice versa.
In trinitarian thought the essential nature of the Son and the Father is God. They are different people though.
A clear statement of the pre-existence of the Word, and the identification of the Word with Jesus.
Also in JP Holding’s discussion of the hypostatic existence of Jesus here he draws from Jewish philosophy the belief that God’s Wisdom (Jesus) and his Royal Power (the Spirit) are eternal attributes of the Father.
Like or Dislike:
0
Question
1 Timothy 3:16
When God was manifest in the flesh are we to interpret that
as the Second Person in the Trinity came in the Flesh?
or the Father who is GOD manifest in flesh and because
of the Flesh he is called the Son of God ?
The bible never uses God the Son
Like or Dislike:
0
Praise God in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
I know when I worship before the Throne Its only going to be One on it.
How many will you see ?
If One what’s His name ?
If Three what are their names ?
I beleive the One whose image I’m made in because I’m only One Person.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jbarg.
“Berfore Abraham was, I am” Abraham rejoiced to see His day. Who’s day? The Day of Jehovah?
Psalmist “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool”
There was a loud voice out of heaven “This is my begotten Son, hear ye Him.”
“To which of any angel did he say at any time, thou are my son, today I have begotten thee.”
You must have missed my post that I have aunts and uncles and cousins who are Oneness so I know the debates already.
Like or Dislike:
0
So we Know there is a differance between begotten and eternal
right ?
and was the Psalmist letting us know that one God was talking
to the other God?
or is he refering to God talking to a Human ?
You see I don’t beleive God became a Man, he Manifest in a Man
Jesus Christ deity is beyond His Human existence
his Pre-existence is WORD not SON
now if you are trying to explain things to me like, I was created before I was born , now these are things I just really don’t totally understand so maybe if you are talking of the Son of God created
before he was Born then ?
Like or Dislike:
0
Praise the Lord Jesus
I was raised Baptist, most of my family are. My brother who was a baptist Reverend went to moody bible institute etc. was witnessed
to , he Repented was baptised in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost with the sign of Speaking in tongues and then a real life change. Now, before I had ever heard of Oneness Pentecostal I knew everthing was about Jesus Christ . My brother witnessed to me , I fought him tooth and nail but in my Heart I knew the glorifing
of Jesus Christ was the Truth and by the Grace of God through Faith I obeyed it. There are people in my family that understood the Truth went out Got baptised in Jesus name and filled with Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues and they contiue to go to Baptist churches etc. I’m a Oneness Pentecostal and I beleive in eternal security,predestination etc. etc.
I don’t get into it with people about who’s going to Hell because thats in God hands but I tell people just obey it, its the Word of God . we walk by Faith not by Sight
Like or Dislike:
0
Jbarg and Kara,
you both avoided my question and especially of what the Scriptures are clear in speaking and teaching concerning the mis-conception that “Jesus is God”
So I will ask again and pray that you can answer the question and not post subversives to allude to answering.
So, if you believe ‘Jesus is God’ how is it that he DEFINITELY DID NOT have the same will as God? Beit that should He truely have BEEN GOD, there would be no struggle in the area of the Will and the mission of Christ.
Jesus continually spoke of “doing the will of the Father” and that He was in fact doing so, yet we find in the Scriptures that there is recorded for us that there was a moment that He struggled with “”doing the will of the Father”" – but should Jesus have BEEN GOD as you ascribe to believe – then there would be NO DIFFERENCE of Will’s between Jesus AND Father – for they are the same : God.
So explain how you can say that Jesus is God when the Scriptures “reveal” that this cannot be.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB
I’m going to try but Jesus Christ being Man and God is to be beleived and maybe not explained.
I wil try One Scripture Revelation 22: 16
He is the root and offspring of David (king)
His God and his son or maybe we say . great,great,great etc
grand son
God bless in His revelation, Jesus Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
Jbarg,
I have no problems w/ Rev passage.
But—when we go around saying things that we cannot explain but blindedly believe, then as Chrsit stated we are the blind leading the blind and are no better than those of His time and era. Yet, for years we have an assumption based on mans delimna and have clung to this for century’s and still are “the blind leading the blind”.
Also, how can we claim that we are good stewards of the Glorious Word of God by making assumptional claims, that we can neither prove by Scripture nor show adequate representation by thru and with the Scriptures.
ergo: should Jesus be truely God in the flesh, then there would be NO difference in wills for they ARE the same, for then that would clearly make Jesus God, but clearly the Scriptures speak differently….nor did Paul at anytime make any claims the Jesus was or is God, yet he difinitely understood that Jesus was/is the Word become flesh, this same Word that indwells every true believer and this same Word that is gives us the same Power as that of Christ and the Apostles…..
R.
Like or Dislike:
0
RB,
I did not see your question so I will read it now. For us to believe that Jesus is the singleness or Oness, then how does it answer to the right hand of the Father? One of the interpretations I have heard is this, Jesus descending on the right hand of power. Explain what that means.
When we accept Jesus as the Son, it is by His own admission, and by witness of the disciples. But most Oneness I know do not accept the Four Gospels and most of Revelation anyway so they don’t teach those scriptures. My uncle who is a preacher and a missionary actually has said that Jesus was just throwing his voice that day to convince people his voice was coming from heaven. I heard a woman one time say the Gospels were lies in the first place. So you can see where the division is.
Isaiah puts it plainly…”unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace and the government shall be upon His shoulders and of His kingdom there shall be no end.”
Then all of the prophecies in the OT were fulfilled in Jesus, not only as the Seed promised to Adam and Eve (which by the way the Oneness also believe in Satan Seed doctrine that Eve had sexual union with Satan and had a baby). Of course there is no name for this child. But you can see what happens when you remove the Gospels.
Jesus is the Begotten Son of God because God says He is. And in heaven He is the High Priest and the lamb who was slain. So now it all comes down to this, is the Holy Ghost a person, or a power?
Yes they are unified in will. Jesus took on mortal flesh and learned obedience.
More Comments:
1 2 3 4 Next »