Help! What have I become?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jmarkoa

Everyone,

Before going any farther with this Oneness/Sameness discussion, lets settle the original post topic with saying, I probably believe like a Unitarian. I'm not ready to commit just yet, I'll do more research and get back to that MUCH later.

But on a serious note, I want to clarify some of the terms I'm using so we are all talking the same language.

Oneness - I still think of my own views as fitting the term Oneness. I think of it as most accurately explained in scripture in the entire chapter of John 17. but more specifically,

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And,

John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

To me, this sounds like Jesus has just defined true One-ness.

Sameness - Everything pertaining to God, Jesus, Spirit, Holy Ghost, Comforter, etc... are ALL EXACTLY THE SAME THING, even though they may have different descriptions, names, titles, characters, persons, natures, bodies, functions, etc... They are ALL still the exact same thing and can be thought of interchangeably.


I really think most people who call themselves Oneness believers, would probably not use my Oneness definition, but would be closer to my Sameness description. But only an individual can say what they are or aren't. Please let me know YOU define Oneness as it pertains to the way you believe.

Oneness is a generally known and understood term in theology, just like trinitarianism, unitarianism, Socinianism, binitarianism, Arianism, etc. You are attempting to basically steal a term that means one thing, use it to mean something else, while attempting to deny all those who actually fit the term the right to use that term. Oneness is not "sameness".

It would be no different than if you called yourself a trinitarian, when you are actually a unitarian, while trying to convince everyone that trinitarianism means three successive deities or something. Nobody would buy it because it's just incorrect.

Oneness is the well known theological position that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are NOT three co-equal co-eternal simultaneous Persons each possessing the One divine essence or nature, but are instead three terms expressing different modes or aspects of the One Divine Person of God as He interacts with His creation in various ways and relationships. Christ is understood to be both fully human and yet simultaneously God, while NOT existing as a distinct or separate DIVINE PERSON FROM GOD THE FATHER.

Unlike trinitarianism, Oneness theology has not been formulated in a series of "officially approved creeds and confessions", so there is room within Oneness theology for varying explanations and descriptions. However, there is still an accepted range of ideas, beyond which one has ventuted OUTSIDE of Oneness theology. Oneness belief affirms that Jesus Christ is God and Father, and that He is the Spirit. Or to put it another way, the Son is the Father in human manifestation, and the Spirit is the Son in spiritual presence.

Your statements would be recognized by ALL camps as definitely NOT Oneness, but more Socinian or unitarian. While anyone can call themselves whatever they want, to be taken seriously we have to at least use terms as they are generally accepted and used.

[Esaias]

Now I will grant this: among those calling themselves Oneness, there are some who have developed aberrant erroneous unscriptural and "non Oneness" views, usually due to a lack of detailed and thorough teaching. Instead they grew up on a steady diet of certain phrases that serve as a sort of "code" among Oneness Pentecostals. Things like "God robed Himself in flesh", and "God didn't send someone ELSE to save us...", and "the mighty God in Christ", and several others.

These terms originated in early 20th century sermons and hymnody, and were often a shorthand for certain Oneness concepts. Unfortunately, the shorthand was passed on but the actual original concepts that originally undergirded those affirmations were not passed on very clearly in some cases. So kids grow up in church hearing these statements, never receive in depth theological teaching on what is actually being said and MEANT, and grow up with a corrupted view of things. Those corruptions get passed on, and eventually you have people claiming to be Oneness who are anything BUT Oneness.

Sometimes, people shy away from Biblical language (like referring to Jesus as the Son of God, etc) because they feel it smacks of trinitarianism. Or else because they do not want others to ASSUME they mean those things the way trinitarians mean them. This is aberrant as well. If our theology cannot be expressed by the Bible's own declarations and terminology, then our theology needs to be re-examined for certain. Holding a view because one is afraid of being mistaken for some other group is fraught with snares and does not usually end well. It often produces a stunted or otherwise erroneous theology.

It makes more sense to me to just accept ALL of what God says as the boundaries within which we are to constrain ourselves. God calls Jesus the Son of God and Son of man. Yet He is also called God, Father, Spirit, Jehovah, Almighty, etc. We need not make a choice between the two, but rather we need to embrace both truths. The term "Oneness" as a descriptor of a theological system comes closest to all the Biblical data.

Personally I don't particularly like the term. It is awkward grammatically in certain constructions. It is technically just another variation or synonym for "unity" but obviously unitarian was already taken. I would prefer Monarchian but that term refers to two different theologies - one unitarian, and one Oneness! - so it creates some confusion. Modalism is fraught with misunderstandings and misinterpretation. And so on for every other term I can think of.

Personally, I only use the term when discussing theology with other Oneness believers or those with exposure to Oneness theology. I pretty much never use it outside of those situations. I generally prefer the terms "Biblical", "apostolic", and "Christian" to describe my theology and beliefs.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now I will grant this: among those calling themselves Oneness, there are some who have developed aberrant erroneous unscriptural and "non Oneness" views, usually due to a lack of detailed and thorough teaching. Instead they grew up on a steady diet of certain phrases that serve as a sort of "code" among Oneness Pentecostals. Things like "God robed Himself in flesh", and "God didn't send someone ELSE to save us...", and "the mighty God in Christ", and several others.

These terms originated in early 20th century sermons and hymnody, and were often a shorthand for certain Oneness concepts. Unfortunately, the shorthand was passed on but the actual original concepts that originally undergirded those affirmations were not passed on very clearly in some cases. So kids grow up in church hearing these statements, never receive in depth theological teaching on what is actually being said and MEANT, and grow up with a corrupted view of things. Those corruptions get passed on, and eventually you have people claiming to be Oneness who are anything BUT Oneness.

Sometimes, people shy away from Biblical language (like referring to Jesus as the Son of God, etc) because they feel it smacks of trinitarianism. Or else because they do not want others to ASSUME they mean those things the way trinitarians mean them. This is aberrant as well. If our theology cannot be expressed by the Bible's own declarations and terminology, then our theology needs to be re-examined for certain. Holding a view because one is afraid of being mistaken for some other group is fraught with snares and does not usually end well. It often produces a stunted or otherwise erroneous theology.

It makes more sense to me to just accept ALL of what God says as the boundaries within which we are to constrain ourselves. God calls Jesus the Son of God and Son of man. Yet He is also called God, Father, Spirit, Jehovah, Almighty, etc. We need not make a choice between the two, but rather we need to embrace both truths. The term "Oneness" as a descriptor of a theological system comes closest to all the Biblical data.

Personally I don't particularly like the term. It is awkward grammatically in certain constructions. It is technically just another variation or synonym for "unity" but obviously unitarian was already taken. I would prefer Monarchian but that term refers to two different theologies - one unitarian, and one Oneness! - so it creates some confusion. Modalism is fraught with misunderstandings and misinterpretation. And so on for every other term I can think of.

Personally, I only use the term when discussing theology with other Oneness believers or those with exposure to Oneness theology. I pretty much never use it outside of those situations. I generally prefer the terms "Biblical", "apostolic", and "Christian" to describe my theology and beliefs.

Now I don't know about all that Brother Esaias...can't be puttin down our traditions and elders like that by bad mouthin their words!...why Bro So and Sos dad built this church and even built the fellowship hall! We got a little brass name plate on the door and everything!



You start sayin all that and itll upset the whole applecart! Why theres gonna be anarchy in the pews and somebody might set them tissue boxes under the pews on fire with hairspray sparked by two bobby pins sparked together!


Cant we just keep things the way they are!


We just put in new carpet!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Now I don't know about all that Brother Esaias...can't be puttin down our traditions and elders like that by bad mouthin their words!...why Bro So and Sos dad built this church and even built the fellowship hall! We got a little brass name plate on the door and everything!



You start sayin all that and itll upset the whole applecart! Why theres gonna be anarchy in the pews and somebody might set them tissue boxes under the pews on fire with hairspray sparked by two bobby pins sparked together!


Cant we just keep things the way they are!


We just put in new carpet!

Well, theology is like hair: some folks like it loose and easy, some like it high and tight. One of them wins wars, one of them votes for Bernie Sanders.

[jmarkoa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The Body of Christ is not God,... He is fully human and fully God, and ONE person...

"...The Body of Christ is not God..."

That part we agree on. There are those who call themselves Oneness that believe that Jesus's flesh IS God, or rather, Divine Flesh Believers. It appears to me that no one posting here believes that Jesus's flesh is God. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.)

"...I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me..."

Another concept I think we can also agree on, is that Jesus had his own will that he set aside to do God's will. (If we disagree on this point, tell me how you see it differently.)

So here's my question to your statement above, and to everyone who still uses the terms "same", "fully", and "100%", when describing Jesus and God is this:

If we agree that Jesus's flesh is NOT God, and we agree that his own personal will is NOT God, exactly what portion of him IS God?

I give my answer in post #54. But I will also answer it here in a more precise way based on this scripture:

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I've been asked, "How can you compare God's spirit that is in us, to the spirit in Jesus?"

Even you have asked:

Originally Posted by coksiw

...You keep arguing that the Spirit IN us is the same as the Father IN the Christ. As far as I know, nobody in the New Testament has said those phrases as Jesus did..

Yes, it's Jesus that describes exactly that, perfectly, in the scripture just quoted. That is how I now think of Oneness, not just Jesus and God, but also, "...That THEY ALL may be one; as thou, Father, art in me..." (capitalization added by me for clarification of my point). This definition of Oneness by Jesus puts you, and me, in the equation with him and God. But there is still only ONE God to be one in. Me, you, and Jesus have God in us. But that does not make us God.

So I think it would be OK to quote and believe Jesus even if no one else does. But even YOU do it in the question you asked...

Originally Posted by coksiw

...How do you explain some of the things Jesus said like "Before Abraham, I am"...

There are many scriptures about preexistence. You and I existed in the mind of God, even before creation. But we are not God. Any preexistence before creation, is only God and His plans for the future. John tries very hard to explain this idea to others by using the term "Word". For me, I think he is trying to explain much, much more that just Jesus with that term. For me, John is explaining the ENTIRETY of God's plan that preexisted in Him, or in His thoughts toward us, including Jesus, even the entire world that God has designed around Jesus's future existence. But, once created, none of those things are actually God.

Yes, there comes a point in creation, where God fulfills His own plan, and Jesus is made, and sent by God. "...the Word was made flesh..." We also are brought into this world by God's plan. But all of that is the creation. God is before creation. Only God is the creator.

Originally Posted by coksiw

...How do you explain..."If you see me you have seen the Father"...

Check out post #7. Tell me if you agree.

Originally Posted by coksiw

...How do you explain... all those verses in Revelation of what Jesus said? ...

I haven't fully explained it. Its on my list. I've only briefly explained my position in post #63 paragraph 5. See if that is good enough an explanation for you.

Originally Posted by coksiw

.. According to your view, he must have been bipolar....

Honestly that's how I think of your own description of Jesus being a dual natured God/man.

Originally Posted by coksiw

...Paul was very accurate with his use of terminology, for example, his use of "Lord" was always referring to Jesus Christ. He never used this phrase on a believer: "[Col 2:9 NKJV] 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;"

If you will go back and keep reading, you'll see how Paul ultimately explains how all this works, and gives all the credit to God, just three verses ahead in verse 12. He explains this all happens "... through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Many writers in the Bible will spend large portions of scripture describing just Jesus in detail, or only God in great depth, but they always end up mentioning the other somewhere else in scriptures.

[coksiw]

You cite verses when Jesus speaks as man to prove that he is a just a man. I can't disagree with those. I believe Jesus was fully man, so had a human will and a soul, and spoke as man many times. I then show you verses where Jesus speaks as God, and only God could speak like that, or verse were Jesus is said to be God, and then you go with "it could also be a figure of speech meaning actually....". Pretty bold figures of speech I guess. I am still wondering what interpretation you are going to give to Isa 9:6. I am actually amazed of the explanation you give to Col 2:9. I have never heard of that before. So when we are resurrected we are going to have the fullness of the Godhead bodily dwelling in us?

Here, we are again back to the same issue I find all the time with false doctrines: lack of consistent hermeneutics. You just can't believe Jesus is God revealed in flesh, so you try to find an explanation to the verses by making it just a figure of speech or twisting is plain meaning.

[jmarkoa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now I will grant this: ...

Esaias,

Thank you so much for having the patience to send this post and post #71! This is where we should have started! Of course, I have a TON of questions I'm hoping you will add to this. Bear with me. Even very short answers to specific questions will really help if you don't mind.

Can you tell me where you found all your info on Oneness beliefs? I'd like to read more, and I'm sure you don't want to type it all here! Thanks again for all you have documented. I've not seen anything that detailed online, but I have read Oneness books by David Bernard and a few others. Any thoughts on how his views correspond with yours would also be helpful.

After reading all your definitions, I agree that my views don't fit in the Oneness definition. All of my post have been an attempt to try to show what I see and don't see in the Word. I think now I can explain that my problem is with what is referred to as the Deity of Christ. My limited research is that it was officially documented at the first Council of Nicaea? I would really like to study this further, but have no idea where to even begin. Every source online seems to contradict every other.

My own studying took a turn with the two voices and two descriptions I saw while trying to read and understand Revelation as it pertains to the Millennial Reign. Do you also see that? No one I know in my Oneness circle will even have a conversation about the prophetic future talked about there. Any views would be appreciated. Any timeline would be GREATLY appreciated. Do you think we just go to Heaven so none of that is necessary to know? I know this is not really the forum for Endtime discussions, but just your basic position would help this discussion, if you don't mind sharing.

Here is another thing that happened in my church that underlines some of the thoughts you posted earlier, and affected me in such a way I felt I had to start my own study. Quite awhile ago, at a Christmas service, a young person spoke from the platform telling his understanding of the baby Jesus laying in the manger. I'll paraphrase, but this is really close. He said, I'm so thankful that God came down from Heaven and birthed himself into a body. He became a baby and lived a life like us because He wanted to experience life here on earth and everything we go through. God then died on a cross for me so now I can see Him when I go to Heaven. My wife and I were VERY confused. No one else was.

[coksiw]

Mark, you may find this interesting:

"I Will" or "We Will": How Many Wills Does Jesus Have?
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/willofchrist2.htm

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jmarkoa

Can you tell me where you found all your info on Oneness beliefs? I'd like to read more, and I'm sure you don't want to type it all here! Thanks again for all you have documented. I've not seen anything that detailed online, but I have read Oneness books by David Bernard and a few others. Any thoughts on how his views correspond with yours would also be helpful.

Numerous books (both pro and con) on the subject, numerous conversations with Oneness believers both online and in person, numerous online recordings of audio and video of Oneness Pentecostal teachers and preachers going back decades, as well as historical documents concerning the history of Christian theology especially during the early medieval period... I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here. I've been studying theology as a Christian since around 1992.

Bernard provides a basic, general presentation of Oneness theology. His books are more of a "popular theology" as opposed to a strictly scholarly theology. What I mean is he writes books for the general public, so he tends to be less specific and meaty as it were in some areas. His History of Christian Doctrine is a pretty good series, though, from what I've read. He's a lawyer and kind of writes like one: somewhat dry and not really startling, nice and safe.

I think his theology of the logos is not very developed, I think he has a better grasp on soteriology rather than theology proper.

After reading all your definitions, I agree that my views don't fit in the Oneness definition. All of my post have been an attempt to try to show what I see and don't see in the Word. I think now I can explain that my problem is with what is referred to as the Deity of Christ. My limited research is that it was officially documented at the first Council of Nicaea? I would really like to study this further, but have no idea where to even begin. Every source online seems to contradict every other.

The Council of Nicea "settled" an internecine catholic dispute between two factions of trinitarians. The "deity of Christ" (belief that Christ is God) appears in several writings before Nicea, both Christian and secular. In fact it appears in some of the earliest post-apostolic writings available. By the way, so does unitarianism. Trinitarianism was a later development primarily among the Montanists although it rose to prominence by the time of Nicea. Pre-Nicene Montanist writer Tertullian wrote "Against Praxeas" as an early trinitarian apologetic against what is generally known today as "Oneness theology". It contains some bias and distortions of Oneness belief but does give a look at some of the issues developing at that time. Here's a link: http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullp.htm One of the best books out there is Christology In The Making by James Dunn. Although he is a trinitarian and flubs some things at the end, his book provides an excellent overview of the chronological and ideological development of New Testament thought. Warning: his writings are dense and require careful attention to detail. Not available online but can be ordered from Amazon or any decent bookstore.

My own studying took a turn with the two voices and two descriptions I saw while trying to read and understand Revelation as it pertains to the Millennial Reign. Do you also see that? No one I know in my Oneness circle will even have a conversation about the prophetic future talked about there.

The Millennium is described in ch 20. Not sure what you are referring to, can you elaborate?

Any views would be appreciated. Any timeline would be GREATLY appreciated. Do you think we just go to Heaven so none of that is necessary to know? I know this is not really the forum for Endtime discussions, but just your basic position would help this discussion, if you don't mind sharing.

I don't believe our destiny is to "go to heaven". The meek shall inherit the earth. For my understanding of prophecy, here's a basic introduction: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=51227

Here is another thing that happened in my church that underlines some of the thoughts you posted earlier, and affected me in such a way I felt I had to start my own study. Quite awhile ago, at a Christmas service, a young person spoke from the platform telling his understanding of the baby Jesus laying in the manger. I'll paraphrase, but this is really close. He said, I'm so thankful that God came down from Heaven and birthed himself into a body. He became a baby and lived a life like us because He wanted to experience life here on earth and everything we go through. God then died on a cross for me so now I can see Him when I go to Heaven. My wife and I were VERY confused. No one else was.

The young person's statements, while obviously not very theological or "deep", don't seem very confusing to me. I can see how they would seem confusing to someone who did not believe Christ is God, though.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Mark, you may find this interesting:

"I Will" or "We Will": How Many Wills Does Jesus Have?
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/willofchrist2.htm

Dulle locates will in the hypostasis rather than the ousia. Orthodox trinitarians locate the will in the ousia rather than the hypostasis. The issue hinges on whether the will is a faculty of the person, or the nature.

This is why I usually find myself at odds with Dulle and those who take his approach. He (and they) are attempting to express Oneness theology within the framework of trinitarian theological presuppositions and terminology. The problem is that orthodox trinitarian theology is based on the paradigm of classical (pagan) Greco-Roman metaphysics and depends upon it. Scripture however asserts that the sophia or wisdom of the world (classical philosophy and religion) failed to acquire accurate knowledge of God, and by divine design. In other words, attempting to explain Biblical truth within the confines of pagan metaphysics necessarily produces error.

Biblically, Jesus had a will. He also submitted His will to the will of God: "Nevertheless, not my will, but Thine, be done." The human and the divine will seem here to be perfectly attested to as distinct things. Yet, Jesus ALWAYS did what was pleasing to the Father. Here the unity or dare I say ONENESS of Christ's will with God's will is also perfectly attested to. A Oneness Christology would seem to demand the Divine will was incarnate in, through, and indeed as the human will. Thus, in one sense, they are two distinct wills, but in another sense they are ONE will.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in these discussions is the equivocal meaning of "will". It can mean either the FACULTY of volition, or it can mean the actual volition or course of action chosen by the will, or it can mean simply a desire or "want-to" of the person, the flesh, the senses, the reason, the intellect, etc.