My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

I recently joined this forum, and this is my 1st thread so here goes.

When Paul was blinded he asked "Who art thou Lord?" And the Lord said "I am Jesus". Paul later wrote to the Colossian church saying that all the fullness of the Godhead bodily dwelleth in Christ and we're complete in him. Yet, the monotheistic apostle Paul (& John, Peter, etc) wrote extremely often, mostly in greetings, in the manner I have shown below.

In the churches that I have been blessed to attend (and currently attend), the word(title)" Father" is almost never used except, and because, as we proudly sing: I know Jesus is the Father, I know Jesus is the Son, I know Jesus is the Holyghost, and all these three are one. Would Paul sing : I know Jesus is the Father..?

My primary question is this; If we (his church) have the same theology/revelation as Paul, why does he (& other writers) so persistantly separate the "Father" and the "Lord Jesus Christ", while we, in our speech, conversations, & songs as a whole, do not? Our reasoning: cause "it's all in him". Below are some verses that I have listed. This is a sincere question. Please just answer the question per your opinion, instead of quoting and debating everyone elses postings ( I can learn more from you that way).

Thank You and God Bless.

Ex: Gal. 1:1 Paul an apostle..., but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead.(I know: Jesus said destroy this temple, and 3 days I will raise it, my point of separation remains) Please view below, and then answer my highlighted question. Thanks again.

Romans 1:7 Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ

Rom. 15:6That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Cor 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power

2 Cor. 1:2Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ

2 Cor. 1:3Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

2 Cor. 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Gal 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Eph. 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Eph. 3:14 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Eph. 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Phil 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Phil 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

Col. 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thess. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thess 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints

2 Thess. 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

1 Tim 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

2 Tim. 1:2 Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our

Philemon 3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

2 John 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.[/SIZE]

Re: 1st thread
 

Welcome Shaggy, I would suggest reading about in the hybridizing thread...

Re: 1st thread
 

Uh, that junk belongs on the Trinitarian thread Shag! :ursofunny:ursofunny

Welcome aboard! Nice thread and great topic. I will respond further later on.

Re: 1st thread
 

Good question. I personally have no problem with it, and I often speak in that manner (the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' and so forth). I don't that 'most' Oneness people have a problem with it, and I am not so sure I have seen what you are saying in most of the churches I have been blessed to attend.

But I do think that there is somewhat of a fear of being misunderstood, that some people have. I think the same is true of trinitarians as well.

A lot fo the creedal language that trinitarians use came about as an intentional effort to NOT be mistaken for being 'Sabellian' or Oneness or whatever. I think we as a movement have some of the same tendencies, somewhat.

Re: 1st thread
 

Welcome Shag... (although I misread your username as Shaq at first and accused poor Stephen Hoover of getting it wrong) :)

I have already posed this question and did get some conversation on the subject but not what I had hoped.

Hopefully this thread will fare better.

In the meantime you can read through the posts on the thread I created on the subject here.

Re: 1st thread
 

I think Eliseus summed it up pretty well. Fear. We are afraid of being suspected of promoting trinitarianism if we even hint at differentiating between God and Jesus. And, maybe, we aren't (I'm speaking in general terms) as "secure" in our revelation as was Paul. Let me explain that. A seasoned minsiter (as Paul was) is often alot more "secure" in his biblical training than I am. They have studied, researched, and studied and reseached some more, their doctrinal foundations. A person who attended Bible College is more knowledgeable in doctrinal studies than a person like me who never attended a day of high school. Therefore, a minister if often more "secure" in doctrine then your average lay member. And too, in Paul's day, the NT church was in its infancy... their "vision" was perhaps clearer than ours. He also had access to more literature than we do in this present day. And, we are hampered by the fact that we read the Bible in English... word usages change over time and through translation. Paul had the orginal Greek and Hebrew while we have to depend on what has been translated for us.

I was talking to someone who said, "I don't believe in Matthew 28:19". I answered that I believe it as much as I believe Acts 2:38. I was immediately branded a compromiser and a trinity sympathizer (what ever that is). It is fear that causes people to choose their words so carefully. Fear that their words will be misconstrued. Fear of being labelled a heretic. Paul clearly understood the relationship of the One God with His differing manifestations or offices and had no problem using language that differentiated between the three.

Well, at least thats my under-educated take on things.

And, BTW, welcome to the Forum. Your are a welcome addition!

Re: 1st thread
 

Also, part of the problem is this (I believe, anyway lol):

A lot of Oneness people, having realised that Jesus is the Father, Son, AND the Holy Ghost, then make an error - they no longer think of Jesus as actually a human being, an individual MAN.

The Bible generally speaks of Christ as a man, far more often than it speaks of Him as God. In fact, when speaking of Him as God, the bible often maintains a distinction between deity and humanity - for example, when it says 'God was manifest in the flesh' we still have a distinction - God (the Father) and 'flesh (the Son).

In the first century, the original disciples spent actual time personally with the Lord. And so they see Him as a man, a teacher, a rabbi, indeed as the Son of David, the prophesied Messiah. As late as John 14 they still had trouble seeing who He was - 'Show us the father, and it sufficeth for us' said Phillip. They saw him with their eyes as a human being (because He definitely was - and is - a human being).

So this is carried over - even after they come to the theological truth that Christ, the human being, is the 'incarnate God', meaning God had taken on a human existence, God had entered this world AS A HUMAN, - still, even after that is understood, they still speak of Him as a man, more often than not. They speak of Him as the Son, as the Lord who came to do the will of God, as the Redeemer who offered Himself to God on our behalf, as the Priest who intercedes for us before God, as the one seated at the right hand of God, and so forth.

They viewed Him primarily as the man God became, rather than as 'God in a body'. I think a lot of people today tend to think of Jesus as 'God in a body' moreso than as 'the man whom God became'. And I think the reason for that is the emphasis that has been placed on His deity as an opposition view to the trinitarian and Arian views has caused some to de-emphasise His humanity to the point that sometimes it gets lost from view.

Re: 1st thread
 

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Re: 1st thread
 

Shag, my thoughts along these lines will be a bit controversial.... LOL!

I think we should not only be comfortable praying in the manner of the disciples... but that we SHOULD pray in that fashion ourselves.

Have we received something Christ and His followers did not??

At times, I think we should actually pray the words that Jesus prayed - after all he instructed us to say them...

2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name...


It is noteworthy that while Jesus claimed to God (the very God of the Father in Heaven) He did not claim to be the Father.

Re: 1st thread
 

Whooop... dair it is.

Yes sir.

It makes me uncomfortable to think that it would be an awkward thing for someone to word a prayer or a statement in the manner of the apostles.

In my way of thinking it is my opinion that is disposable... not the mindset of the apostles. If I see some of their words that do not speak to my understanding then my understanding goes on trial.

Re: 1st thread
 

I'm not sure I understood what You meant (the very God of the Father in heaven). Please fill me in. Thanks for your input on the subject.

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

I have no problem with the scriptures or saying the father of our Lord Jesus Christ...

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

I agree and have no problem with it as well, I'm just curious as to, in my experience within all the apostolic pentecostal churches that I have been privealedged to visit, and am proudly apart of, why I only hear "Jesus". And I dearly love that name to which there is salvation in none other. But I never personally hear the word/title "Father" being used as did the apostle Paul and others so often in their writings, except as I mentioned when we sing of our revelation of Jesus is the Father..., other wise I don't hear too much about "the Father". In my experience "the church" skips the distinction (Father), and just says "Jesus", yet Paul and the others did not, atleast nearly to the extent we do. So I'm just wondering everyone elses opinion why.
Thanks to all for posting your thoughts on this question!

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

I certainly have no problem with the language of the Bible and use it liberally in my preaching. However I understand the distinction as the writer did. NOT a distinction as persons but as Father as God and Son as mediator. Two roles of that ONE glorious person.

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

I hope that if some stranger (modern day Paul)came in our churches from off the street, and said during testimony service, "I thank God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, for giving me this opertunity to testify of his mercy.- that we wouldn't, in our minds, hit him in the back of the head with a 12 lb. King James, and tell him he needs the revelation of the oneness of God. :largehalo

Re: 1st thread
 

Awe - yes. I wanted to be clear that the Father and the Son are the one same person of God.

Having said that, however, I do not believe Jesus, the Son of God, was his own Father...

The very definitions of Father and Son prevent the mixing of the terms.

The Father is God as He relates to creation, and to His only begotten Son, apart from, and outside of, the incarnation.

The Son is God in and through the incarnation.

To mix the terms is to do injustice to scripture and in some cases promotes a skewed Christology.

So while Jesus, the Son of God, was divine and God himself, it is improper IMHO, to say He is His own Father.


I cannot in good conscience sing the song you referenced... "I know Jesus is the Father..."

Even though I know and understand Jesus is God Almighty. :)

Re: 1st thread
 

I have heard more than one trinitarian accuse us of believing Jesus was his own father.

Re: 1st thread
 

...And sometimes they have good cause for the accusation!

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

THE SHAG SCORES AGAIN!!


:happydance

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

So you if you were at one of those big time high church havin' apostolic meetings and a preacher came to the pulpit and he started off his thoughts with the following phrase you wouldn't wonder about his beliefs?

(Stealing this from Shag... )

"I thank God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, for..."

You wouldn't have any issue with the wording of that opening phrase?

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Well no - of course not - because even though it was a bad choice of words, we would know what he reeeeaaally meant!


:toofunny

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

LOL...

So... said phrase would be best accompanied with a "wink.. wink" :)

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Steve,
I am preparing to move away from this topic for a while because it can be very upsetting to folks, but I can not leave your post without commenting that it reads to me as something that is quite CIRCULAR.

I appreciate that you are open to consider the dilemnas or even the inconsistencies that may be at work in the way classical oneness teachers present who the Son of God is, but I can not help but read your post as someone who wants to acknowledge something but can not, for whatever reason.

To say:
"The very definitions of Father and Son prevent the mixing of the terms."
and
"So while Jesus, the Son of God, was divine and God himself, it is improper IMHO, to say He is His own Father."

Is a stream of thinking that contradicts itself. At this point, I think you are very close to throwing your hands up in the air and calling it a mystery.:toofunny

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Speaking of Loaded language. First of all Paul did not separate anything. Yes grammatically speaking there seems to be a distinction and even a separation. But Paul never said that God is separate from Jesus, or The Father is separate from the Son or "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate persons" let alone use the greek word that later church fathers adopted for persons to describe a distinction between them.

Paul does this in my view because there was a distinction, but not a separation. Father and Son were different just as the Divine nature was to the Human.

You will notice that in all those salutations the distinction or separation of the Spirit is lacking.

BTW I say "Father" all the time. Because God is my Father.

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Don't leave just yet - because I am not at all clear as to what you are saying is contradictory.

Are you saying one cannot claim Jesus is divine without acknowledging He is to be called the Father?

I think it only contradicts if one insists that Son = Flesh, and Father = God.

I don't follow that view.

I believe It can be said the
Father is God,
and the Son is God -

yet there ARE distinctions that can be made. (which stands to reason - otherwise why have the different names/titles?)

The human and divine natures in Christ should not be understood to be synonomous with Son and Father.

As Jason Dulle says - the distinctions between Father and Son are "EXternal" rather than "INternal" to Jesus Christ.

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z...thersymbol.gif

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Prax, I understood Shag to be questioning why the SAME language used in scripture seems to be unacceptable in todays churches. Not that he was questioning the extent of the "separation" between the Father and the Son.

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

So the million dollar question is; Why did the monotheistic apostle Paul (and others) go to such an extent of at least "grammatical distinction" between God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, as often as he did?(ex; 1st page).(For that matter, why did he not pin the name Jesus to the title "Father", as he did with the title "Son"?)

And I still wonder what the thought reaction would be at a big Church meeting if some stranger opened up talking the way Paul did. Why not skip the distinction and just say "Jesus", Paul? ("wink")

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Bump!

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Maybe because if we talked like that from the platform of a church people would think we were "going trinity." Maybe we are so afraid of words and terms and how they might be perceived by others.

It is my understanding that the Apostles, elders, and leaders in the early church were originally Jewish and therefore believed in JHVH as the only one true God. They believed that JHVH had indeed come to them in Jesus and was living within them and working upon them and through them as the Spirit of the Lord, or the Spirit of Jesus Christ, or Christ in them. Look how Peter spoke about Jesus in Acts chapter 10:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Notice verse 38, he didn't try to explain that Jesus as God anointed Jesus as Son with the Spirit of Jesus and that Jesus as Son was empowered by Jesus as God so He could work these miracles. In verse 40 he just said that God raised Jesus from the dead. He didn't think it was necessary to quote John 2:19-21 how Jesus said He was the One who would raise the temple of His body from the dead.

There was no "trinity vs. oneness" debate. They did not have to be so very careful of the words they used lest they be considered compromisers or weak on the message or trying to hybridize oneness and trinity. The words "persons" vs "manifestations or offices" had not yet become an issue

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Personally I think that their writings are in a much more formal style than we practice now days. Look at many things from 200 plus years back and you see a different format and more formal style. They refer to themselves in a third person, they use titles galore, all sorts of silly things that we look at as formal and for the most part obsolete in our society. Just my humble opinion.

Re: 1st thread
 

Uh-oh! I wanted to say this, but it will go over so much better coming from you!!! Jesus was fully God, but He was not the Father. There's no way to reconcile that in Scripture. But it was the same Spirit dwelling in Him.

Re: 1st thread
 

I need more explaination of John 10: 23-30
"And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 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."

Thanks and Blessings!!!!
Steve

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

You raise a very good point. People who feel FUNNY using Father AND Jesus Christ in their phraseology are simply in error about the Godhead concept they hold. They are not actual oneness people. Actual Oneness has no problem with these terms.

Disclaimer: IMHO.

It's the same reason many see no point in this verses being in the bible:

John 16:23 KJV And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

John 16:26 KJV At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

Re: 1st thread
 

I think that Jesus and the Father are one Spirit. I do NOT believe that there is NO distinction between their roles. Scriptures over and over separate them to some extent. I do not believe that they have separate personalities or thought patterns; they are the same Spirit. Saying He and the Father are "one" just means that they are part of the same Spirit. Just my opinion.......

To me, it's a mystery that we will not understand until we get to heaven. I am not Trinitarian, but I am also not as Oneness as some evidently. I don't see where Jesus claimed to be exactly the same thing as the Father. But I do believe that they are parts of the same Spirit. It's hard for me to explain, but maybe that makes sense to you.

Re: 1st thread
 

Well, among other things (what they know, e.g.), their wills (desires, wishes) were different: ". . . nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." To a Trinny, that's pretty good evidence of separate persons (personalities) and thought patterns. (Yeah, I know. There's always an explanation for these kinds of things. That was the human side of Jesus speaking, or some such. I'm just sayin'.)

Re: 1st thread
 

THANKS!
It does make sense....to a point. But, as you stated, there are things we won't understand until we are with the Father...and, I guess until that time, I should spend my time here doing as Jesus taught...going about the Father's business!!
Blessings!!!

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

In similiar manner how do some of you feel about statements and songs: God's not dead, he is alive, with, IMHO, the implication that God (deity) died. spoken of and sang all centered around the aftermath of the crucifixion- the "empty tomb". Not so much in comparison to "dead idles", but all to do with the fact that the tomb is empty so"God's not dead, he is alive. I got a problem with that. Just a little more oneness than I can deal with, cause I'm believin that God, (who is Spirit per John 4:24) did not die on that cross. But Jesus Christ the son of God did, and rose again.

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

I totally agree.

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Without commenting on the theology presented by your post. I always thought the lyrics of that particular song was a reaction to the 60s style mantra "God is dead" as opposed to dealing with the resurrection...

Re: My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?
 

Agreed Shag...

But... the songs I have real problems with are the ones where an entire church takes off singing to Satan...

"You better look out Satan look out..."

"Satan your kingdom must come down..."

etc.

While I understand the thought... an entire church joining together and actually singing TO Satan has always struck me as a little disturbing.