While McGrath’s comments should not be used to define the views of all Trinitarians, they do point out that Trinitarianism does not constitute Tritheism, the belief in three Gods. However, they might also be seen as contradicting the view of Hank Hanegraaff, that God is three
In the Oneness view, the Word, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, was joined with an ovum of Mary in her womb, producing a genuine, human life. But this was no ordinary human life. God himself, through his divine image or Word, was forever joined with this human Son. God had added humanity to his deity. The Word had become flesh, and the glory of the Word was beheld “as of the only begotten of the Fatherâ€, as described in John 1:14. It is here that the real distinction between the Father and Son from a Oneness perspective can be explained, thus dispelling common misconceptions that the Oneness Doctrine teaches Jesus was praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Oneness view affirms that there was genuine communication and relationship between the man Christ Jesus and He who begat him. But this relationship was not brought about to placate any loneliness in God or a need on his part for offspring. This relationship was essential for the salvation of mankind. The Kenosis of Christ also necessitated limited, human means of communication with God on his part. He had to pray as any man would. At a certain point not recorded in scripture, this genuine human being understood his real identity. The glory that he would one day enter into already resided in him and three disciples would get a glimpse of it on the Mount of Transfiguration. Yet, Jesus as a man was distinct from his Father. He had a will of his own. At any time, he could have chosen not to drink of the bitter cup that awaited him and instead ascended to the throne. Had he done so, mankind would have remained estranged and unreconciled to God. While he could have been worshipped as God by the angels and saints who had already gone to Heaven, he would not have been our
OTCP does not have the courage to critique this essay and you lack the analytical ability, obviously. Charges of heresy demand a thorough explanation. You won’t give one because any argument you’d give would also condemn half of Trinitarians. As my ASSEMBLIES of GOD professor who graded this paper stated to me, half of trinitarians are functioning tritheists. I’ll count you in that number. James. Of course, my comments are based on the assumption that you actually read the essay. If you did, then you know I had some sharp criticims of the UPCI________________
It just seems at way, RS. Oneness doctrine is heresy. You mean your straw-man version of it is heresy. I would be willing to bet that you really have no clue what the Oneness doctrine is. Since my explanation contradicted your straw man view, you choose to ignore it and pretend the similarities to Trinitarianism are just illusions________________
RS, I have tried to fellowship with Oneness folks. I find more often than not, that I can accept them as Christians, but such acceptance is not often extended to me. In the truest since, God and the nature of God, can not be fully codified in to an all inclusive theological definitions. God gave the written Word, but the written Word does not, can not, contain an infinite God in its finite number of words revealed to finite man. What is clear is the plan (order) of salvation given by God.So, because I accepted Jesus Christ and received the baptism in the Holy Spirit (including speaking in tongues) before I was baptized in water, do you (they) accept me as a Christian? The minister who baptized me in water did it in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Did that invalidate my salvation?I hope in the future that the three that who bare record in heaven help my Oneness brothers to accept me as a Christian.
In luke 3, Jesus was not only an illusionist but also a ventriloquist? Hahahahahahahahahaha.That’s a good one. And by the way if the professor that graded your paper had credentials with the AG he should have them revoked. What was that you complained to me before about ad hominem attacks? Hahahahaha.
Actually my term paper is quite new. I do not recall ever seeing anything like it. And your ventriloquist comment proves just how intellectually dishonest you are. This very thing was thoroughly refuted in the essay. But you choose to continue to bear false witness and judge yourself to be a liar. Is this how you approach all doctrine? I feel sorry for those you pastor________________
You know the school I attend. Thus you know it is not a degree mill. That is very disingenuous of you. This is a simple term paper. Nevertheless, your refusal to comment on it point by point, as my professor did, further magnifies your dis-ingenuousness.Like James, your comments prove you really have not read the paper. It is not even a defense of the onenss doctrine. I have not attended a UPC or Oneness church in over a year. My family has been quite happy at a local Southern Baptist church during that time________________
UPC is very much like any other cult. Error concerning the nature of God that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion. When you exalt an erroneous belief above other issues, you must (by necessity ) spend the majority of your time and efforts trying to defend the indefensible. Same with the JW or the SDA. Sometimes you have to answer this question : “why is it so hard for me to get people to believe the way I do ?Probably because you’re wrong.
I’ve always liked you, Da Sheik. But, as my research clearly demonstrates, by calling the UPC a cult based on their explanation of the Godhead, you are calling half of Trinitarians cultists as well. I did not even begin to scratch the surface in my paper regarding the views of Trinitarians that resemble the Oneness view. Or should I rather say that the Oneness view mirrors that of half of Trinitarians? Yes, the latter is more accurate. The Oneness view is Trinitarian, by the standard of half of Trinitarians. Thus the Oneness proponents do not have some restored truth and the debate is really not necessary.I have exposed an inconvenient truth that many on this board do not want to face. The lack of real engagement and analysis of what I wrote proves my point. Thankfully, the true scholar who is my AG professor at an accredited AG university agrees when my analysis.Now to post the essay on the Oneness board and to hear how I’m a liberal or compromising, blah blah blah________________
Stephen saw the Glory of God (the Father) and His ETERNAL SON STANDING next to the Father. Whatever he saw it was plural. One Godhead, 3 persons and don’t try this nonsense about persons meaning something different today than in the first few centuries. You can twist it all you want to, you can talk about a warming between Pentecostal groups and some confusion as to what Trinity actually means but ONENESS people have other issues beyond their misguided beliefs about the Trinity. How about baptism as a requirement for salvation? How about Speaking in tongues as necessary for salvation? How about baptism in Jesus Name only? And more.Still a cult and btw, so is the Roman Catholic Church. First of all, it was not ME twisting anything regarding the meaning of the word person in ages past. Those were quotes from Trinitarians who have enough letters after their names to fill a phone book. So apparently it is YOU who are twisting, James. More of your twisting is your answer to what Stephen saw. You simply inserted something into the text that is not there. Dake and Joseph Smith would love you. Real Trinitarians know better________________
HERESY?the Oneness doctrine of God is not faithful to the Biblical revelation of the Father and Son as two persons, and that the Oneness rejection of the Trinity is in error. The question now must be asked how serious an error this is, since theological errors vary in their harmfulness.Evangelicals commonly suppose that a professed Christian movement may be judged orthodox or heretical simply on the basis of whether or not it affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. Consequently, some Christians have concluded that the Oneness doctrine, despite its denial of the Trinity, is essentially Christian.This is far too simplistic, however. While it is true that adherence to the two natures of Christ is critical to orthodoxy, and while most pseudo-Christian sects do deny that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simply affirming the two natures is not enough. Indeed, it is possible to call Jesus God and still have another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), if in calling Him God one means something significantly different from what the Bible means.
While McGrath’s comments should not be used to define the views of all Trinitarians, they do point out that Trinitarianism does not constitute Tritheism, the belief in three Gods. However, they might also be seen as contradicting the view of Hank Hanegraaff, that God is three
In the Oneness view, the Word, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, was joined with an ovum of Mary in her womb, producing a genuine, human life. But this was no ordinary human life. God himself, through his divine image or Word, was forever joined with this human Son. God had added humanity to his deity. The Word had become flesh, and the glory of the Word was beheld “as of the only begotten of the Fatherâ€, as described in John 1:14. It is here that the real distinction between the Father and Son from a Oneness perspective can be explained, thus dispelling common misconceptions that the Oneness Doctrine teaches Jesus was praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Oneness view affirms that there was genuine communication and relationship between the man Christ Jesus and He who begat him. But this relationship was not brought about to placate any loneliness in God or a need on his part for offspring. This relationship was essential for the salvation of mankind. The Kenosis of Christ also necessitated limited, human means of communication with God on his part. He had to pray as any man would. At a certain point not recorded in scripture, this genuine human being understood his real identity. The glory that he would one day enter into already resided in him and three disciples would get a glimpse of it on the Mount of Transfiguration. Yet, Jesus as a man was distinct from his Father. He had a will of his own. At any time, he could have chosen not to drink of the bitter cup that awaited him and instead ascended to the throne. Had he done so, mankind would have remained estranged and unreconciled to God. While he could have been worshipped as God by the angels and saints who had already gone to Heaven, he would not have been our
He’ll has frozen over
Re: He’ll has frozen over
OTCP does not have the courage to critique this essay and you lack the analytical ability, obviously. Charges of heresy demand a thorough explanation. You won’t give one because any argument you’d give would also condemn half of Trinitarians. As my ASSEMBLIES of GOD professor who graded this paper stated to me, half of trinitarians are functioning tritheists. I’ll count you in that number. James. Of course, my comments are based on the assumption that you actually read the essay. If you did, then you know I had some sharp criticims of the UPCI________________
It just seems at way, RS. Oneness doctrine is heresy. You mean your straw-man version of it is heresy. I would be willing to bet that you really have no clue what the Oneness doctrine is. Since my explanation contradicted your straw man view, you choose to ignore it and pretend the similarities to Trinitarianism are just illusions________________
RS, I have tried to fellowship with Oneness folks. I find more often than not, that I can accept them as Christians, but such acceptance is not often extended to me. In the truest since, God and the nature of God, can not be fully codified in to an all inclusive theological definitions. God gave the written Word, but the written Word does not, can not, contain an infinite God in its finite number of words revealed to finite man. What is clear is the plan (order) of salvation given by God.So, because I accepted Jesus Christ and received the baptism in the Holy Spirit (including speaking in tongues) before I was baptized in water, do you (they) accept me as a Christian? The minister who baptized me in water did it in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Did that invalidate my salvation?I hope in the future that the three that who bare record in heaven help my Oneness brothers to accept me as a Christian.
John 17________________Charles A. HutchinsSenior Pastor SPWCCongregational Church of Godwww.spwc.church
You didn’t read the essay. Had you, you would not be playing the John 17card________________
In luke 3, Jesus was not only an illusionist but also a ventriloquist? Hahahahahahahahahaha.That’s a good one. And by the way if the professor that graded your paper had credentials with the AG he should have them revoked. What was that you complained to me before about ad hominem attacks? Hahahahaha.
I do accept you. And actually, IMO neither Matthew 28:19or Acts 2:38are referring to baptismal formulas per say. In reality, you were indeed baptized
Actually my term paper is quite new. I do not recall ever seeing anything like it. And your ventriloquist comment proves just how intellectually dishonest you are. This very thing was thoroughly refuted in the essay. But you choose to continue to bear false witness and judge yourself to be a liar. Is this how you approach all doctrine? I feel sorry for those you pastor________________
You know the school I attend. Thus you know it is not a degree mill. That is very disingenuous of you. This is a simple term paper. Nevertheless, your refusal to comment on it point by point, as my professor did, further magnifies your dis-ingenuousness.Like James, your comments prove you really have not read the paper. It is not even a defense of the onenss doctrine. I have not attended a UPC or Oneness church in over a year. My family has been quite happy at a local Southern Baptist church during that time________________
UPC is very much like any other cult. Error concerning the nature of God that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion. When you exalt an erroneous belief above other issues, you must (by necessity ) spend the majority of your time and efforts trying to defend the indefensible. Same with the JW or the SDA. Sometimes you have to answer this question : “why is it so hard for me to get people to believe the way I do ?Probably because you’re wrong.
I’ve always liked you, Da Sheik. But, as my research clearly demonstrates, by calling the UPC a cult based on their explanation of the Godhead, you are calling half of Trinitarians cultists as well. I did not even begin to scratch the surface in my paper regarding the views of Trinitarians that resemble the Oneness view. Or should I rather say that the Oneness view mirrors that of half of Trinitarians? Yes, the latter is more accurate. The Oneness view is Trinitarian, by the standard of half of Trinitarians. Thus the Oneness proponents do not have some restored truth and the debate is really not necessary.I have exposed an inconvenient truth that many on this board do not want to face. The lack of real engagement and analysis of what I wrote proves my point. Thankfully, the true scholar who is my AG professor at an accredited AG university agrees when my analysis.Now to post the essay on the Oneness board and to hear how I’m a liberal or compromising, blah blah blah________________
This is total gobbledegook and spin and nonsense:
Stephen saw the Glory of God (the Father) and His ETERNAL SON STANDING next to the Father. Whatever he saw it was plural. One Godhead, 3 persons and don’t try this nonsense about persons meaning something different today than in the first few centuries. You can twist it all you want to, you can talk about a warming between Pentecostal groups and some confusion as to what Trinity actually means but ONENESS people have other issues beyond their misguided beliefs about the Trinity. How about baptism as a requirement for salvation? How about Speaking in tongues as necessary for salvation? How about baptism in Jesus Name only? And more.Still a cult and btw, so is the Roman Catholic Church. First of all, it was not ME twisting anything regarding the meaning of the word person in ages past. Those were quotes from Trinitarians who have enough letters after their names to fill a phone book. So apparently it is YOU who are twisting, James. More of your twisting is your answer to what Stephen saw. You simply inserted something into the text that is not there. Dake and Joseph Smith would love you. Real Trinitarians know better________________
HERESY?the Oneness doctrine of God is not faithful to the Biblical revelation of the Father and Son as two persons, and that the Oneness rejection of the Trinity is in error. The question now must be asked how serious an error this is, since theological errors vary in their harmfulness.Evangelicals commonly suppose that a professed Christian movement may be judged orthodox or heretical simply on the basis of whether or not it affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. Consequently, some Christians have concluded that the Oneness doctrine, despite its denial of the Trinity, is essentially Christian.This is far too simplistic, however. While it is true that adherence to the two natures of Christ is critical to orthodoxy, and while most pseudo-Christian sects do deny that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simply affirming the two natures is not enough. Indeed, it is possible to call Jesus God and still have another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), if in calling Him God one means something significantly different from what the Bible means.