Most complex explanation of the Godhead ever!

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

He is a three step Apostolic as pertaining to salvation. I just recently discovered that he was teaching the true understanding of (Logos) Oneness doctrine.

Baxter said God made a body before creation. This is not what the oneness position is.

Baxter said the Son was in the beginning. This is not what the oneness position is.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Thats it. You have saved hungry souls $326.

Is this still on Mike Blumes site? If anyone wants to grow in Oneness truth read this book while you can.

:-)

I think it is on his site. I had bookmarked it some time in 2017 I believe. When I saw this thread, I checked my bookmarks, and behold there it was, and the link still worked.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Baxter said God made a body before creation. This is not what the oneness position is.

Baxter said the Son was in the beginning. This is not what the oneness position is.

That God made a visible form, a celestial body, from which he created all else has been taught by some Oneness Pentecostals.

Generally OPs who believe this doctrine do not say that this was the Son as Baxter did in this video, but rather, it was the Word. And to explain the Heb 1 passage they would say it was not the Son per se but the one who became the Son who created.

And so it may not be your Oneness doctrine, :-) but it has been a part of the Oneness tradition. I had been an OP for 27 years and had never heard this teaching, but then I came across a book by John Paterson, an early well regarded Oneness teacher, and some books by Kenneth Reeves, which the last time I checked were still available via the Pentecostal Publishing House. They introduced me to these ideas. Then on this forum I saw that Michael the Disciple believes this as well.

Check out the link I posted in my previous post. The author quotes some of the earliest OPs who taught this view of the Logos--some heavyweights too, like GT Haywood, if I remember correctly.

[Costeon]

One of Kenneth Reeves's books: https://pentecostalpublishing.com/p-...e-godhead.aspx

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Costeon

That God made a visible form, a celestial body, from which he created all else has been taught by some Oneness Pentecostals.
The scripture states that the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, and God said.... I dont see where there was a body of any type that was creating all things, also God spoke the wolds into existence

Generally OPs who believe this doctrine do not say that this was the Son as Baxter did in this video, but rather, it was the Word. And to explain the Heb 1 passage they would say it was not the Son per se but the one who became the Son who created.
There is a reason that OPs dont say the Son was in the beginning is because the Son was not in the beginning, the Son had a beginning "this day have i begotten thee"

And so it may not be your Oneness doctrine, :-) but it has been a part of the Oneness tradition. I had been an OP for 27 years and had never heard this teaching, but then I came across a book by John Paterson, an early well regarded Oneness teacher, and some books by Kenneth Reeves, which the last time I checked were still available via the Pentecostal Publishing House. They introduced me to these ideas. Then on this forum I saw that Michael the Disciple believes this as well.
If Mr. Patterson, Mr. Reeves, or Mr. Disciple believe the Son was in the beginning having a form in any way other than in the plan of God to be revealed as Messiah at a future date, then they are mistaken........with all respect.

Check out the link I posted in my previous post. The author quotes some of the earliest OPs who taught this view of the Logos--some heavyweights too, like GT Haywood, if I remember correctly.

........

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Baxter said God made a body before creation. This is not what the oneness position is.

Baxter said the Son was in the beginning. This is not what the oneness position is.

If the orthodox Oneness position is that God had no body before Bethlehem it is obviously believing major false doctrine. If man is made in the IMAGE OF GOD, obviously God must have had an image before man did.

As to Baxter saying the Son was in the beginning he was not saying anything Paul never said.

Heb 1:1-2

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Paul wrote this.

He followed with this.

Heb 1:3

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It would seem Paul is then revealing who the Son he speaks of was. Not another person of God.....rather.....THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF......GODS PERSON.

At any rate I will condemn the Orthodox modern Oneness teaching before I will condemn the teaching of Paul the apostle.

If he said God made the worlds by his Son let us realize his Son is himself.

Heb 1:2

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

He made the worlds by his Son.

24Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

He made Heaven and Earth by HIMSELF.

His Son must be HIMSELF.

So are you saying that Irvin Baxter is not Oneness?

One could believe Jesus is the only God. Jesus is The Father.

Baptize in Jesus name.

And YET.....they are not Oneness?

Then what IS Baxter and those of us who believe God had a spiritual, angelic body from the beginning?

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

If the orthodox Oneness position is that God had no body before Bethlehem it is obviously believing major false doctrine. If man is made in the IMAGE OF GOD, obviously God must have had an image before man did.
God had the redemption of the world in mind from the beginning. I believe that includes the Messiah and that Messiah would be God manifest in the flesh and that Messiah is the image of the invisible God. I believe God could definitely make man in His image without having first taken on an image in light of redemption from the beginning.

As to Baxter saying the Son was in the beginning he was not saying anything Paul never said.

Heb 1:1-2

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


Paul wrote this.

He followed with this.

Heb 1:3

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It would seem Paul is then revealing who the Son he speaks of was. Not another person of God.....rather.....THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF......GODS PERSON.
Yes Jesus is the express image of Gods person, Jesus is totally God exactly God and all of what God is Manifest and revealed to us. This Jesus was begotten, the historical Christ as a son and man did not exist as an image other than in the mind of God before the incarnation.
Because Jesus is God of course all things were made by him, of course he is before all things, of course he is the firstborn of all creation, sure the scripture can say these things about Jesus, but to say the "SON" was in the beginning, no the son is referring to the begotten flesh
At any rate I will condemn the Orthodox modern Oneness teaching before I will condemn the teaching of Paul the apostle.

If he said God made the worlds by his Son let us realize his Son is himself.
yes agree completely but understand there was no Son other than in the plan of God before incarnation
Heb 1:2

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

He made the worlds by his Son.

24Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

He made Heaven and Earth by HIMSELF.

His Son must be HIMSELF.

So are you saying that Irvin Baxter is not Oneness?
"Im saying we should be very careful about how we understand who Jesus is

One could believe Jesus is the only God. Jesus is The Father.

Baptize in Jesus name.

And YET.....they are not Oneness?

Then what IS Baxter and those of us who believe God had a spiritual, angelic body from the beginning?

..

[Michael The Disciple]

God had the redemption of the world in mind from the beginning. I believe that includes the Messiah and that Messiah would be God manifest in the flesh and that Messiah is the image of the invisible God. I believe God could definitely make man in His image without having first taken on an image in light of redemption from the beginning.

God said to the angels, Let us make man in our image. God had an image. Through this image or LOGOS anyone in the OT who saw God was seeing the image. No one saw God any other way until he became flesh.

Jacob says to his son Joseph when he was on his deathbed:

15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,

16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

As far as Jacob/Israel was concerned that Angel was his God/Elohim. Thats the only way he knew Elohim.

This was the EXPRESS IMAGE Paul spoke of in Heb. 1:2-3

I ASSUME when Paul said that God made the worlds through his Son he was speaking with the understanding that the express image is the same one who became the Son. He seemed to have no qualms about using the tern "Son".

If modern Oneness wants to forbid us to do something Paul did 3 times apparently something is wrong with THEIR UNDERSTANDING. I would stand with Paul before I would them.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

God said to the angels, Let us make man in our image. God had an image. Through this image or LOGOS anyone in the OT who saw God was seeing the image. No one saw God any other way until he became flesh.

Jacob says to his son Joseph when he was on his deathbed:

15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,

16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

As far as Jacob/Israel was concerned that Angel was his God/Elohim. Thats the only way he knew Elohim.

This was the EXPRESS IMAGE Paul spoke of in Heb. 1:2-3

I ASSUME when Paul said that God made the worlds through his Son he was speaking with the understanding that the express image is the same one who became the Son. He seemed to have no qualms about using the tern "Son".

If modern Oneness wants to forbid us to do something Paul did 3 times apparently something is wrong with THEIR UNDERSTANDING. I would stand with Paul before I would them.

I think your missing the point. No-one said not use the term son so if have a problem with "modern oneness" that's your prerogative. I just stating that you don't have an image of the son until incarnation. Sir God may have appeared to Abraham and others, but that's not the son. Of you are saying it is then you missed the point of the incarnation all together.Also to say that God created all things from some angelic manifestation is not bible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

I think your missing the point. No-one said not use the term son so if have a problem with "modern oneness" that's your prerogative. I just stating that you don't have an image of the son until incarnation. Sir God may have appeared to Abraham and others, but that's not the son. Of you are saying it is then you missed the point of the incarnation all together.Also to say that God created all things from some angelic manifestation is not bible.

Actually, I think you may have missed his point.

The Bible says the WORD made all things, and the WORD was made flesh. We call the incarnated WORD "the son of God". Paul says God made the worlds by the Son. Therefore, Paul is saying God made everything by that which we know as the Son (which is the WORD). Michael is simply using the same terminology the apostle used, and that most certainly IS Oneness. If being Oneness means not using scriptural terminology, then call me "not Oneness".