Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Interesting blog with provoking discussion. The post needs some Oneness representatives so jump in!

Though the topic isn't Oneness per se (but rather is heresy is "damnable" in terms of affecting one's salvation or not), but it's creating that argument.

http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010...resy-salvific/

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

yeah... we could have a few hard core AFFers tell em they are on the way to hell - not to mention all the others they are discussing.


:)

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Brian is a brilliant mind. If memory serves he beat out my Lady Cass as class valedictorian! But I will take my salutatorian over him any day!

He has got too much facial hair for me anyway.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Good call, Dan! Facial hair tickles :)

Brian -- great guy. Though he's gone the way of not just seeing Christology through the lens of diversity, but outright rejecting his Oneness roots.

But yes, he has a brilliant mind. The conversation on the comment thread there is blowing up.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

The gloves are off.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Quote:
Trinitarians and Oneness believers have certain things in common like a belief in the full deity of Jesus and the full humanity of Jesus, yes. We both believe that Jesus is one Person, yes. But when we unpack this stuff we see just how drastically different these seeming commonalities are. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is one person: the Son. We believe that he’s the Son in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit and that he’s been such from all eternity. We believe that from the time of the Incarnation he has possessed two natures fully: deity & humanity. I believe that this understanding of Jesus is supported by Scripture. Oneness believers believe that Jesus is one person with two natures as well, but they see these two natures as the Father/deity and the Son/humanity. The Son has not been the Son from all eternity but became the Son in the Incarnation with the addition of humanity. The Son is the Son in relation to the Father but this relation is neither personal since the Father and the Son are the selfsame person, i.e., Jesus, nor is it eternal since the Son only became the Son in the Incarnation. This is an understanding of Jesus that I don’t believe is supported by Scripture.


The Son is only the humanity?
That's all there is to the Son of God?
Just a human?

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

I always wonder why the only solution people see is either Oneness or Trinity? Trinitarians are apt to talk about Oneness shortcomings but ignore the many short comings of Trinitarianism

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

There is no single oneness doctrine just as there is no single trinitarian doctrine. Most of us just believe that God is three and that He is one and we don't try to get too deeply involved in explaining it or fighting about it.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

There are and were so many other doctrines
Unitarian is still alive and well
Arianism was a doctrine way back and still alive, but not well in the JWs

What about binatarianism?

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Sam,

This guy describes EXACTLY the teaching I was raised with growing up in the WOTCCC and, as an adult, in the UPCI.

He didn't say anything out place.

I almost think he has a valid point, except that his thinking would lead me to believe that he is almost a "Tri-theist".

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Father and Son are not "natures" of Jesus.

Father is God himself, apart from humanity in parental role to the Only Begotten. The Son is God as he has shown Himself to us in and through the incarnation.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

An Eternal Son is a contradiction. To be a son, you have to be born. Jesus is literally the Son of God; Luke chapter 1 explains this. Jesus is eternal not due to being an "eternal Son," but due to being the Word made flesh. That is not my opinion; that is fact. John 1:1-14.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

That does appear to be the writer's take on Oneness theology - and I agree with him to an extent.

Oneness, to me, has failed to answer the simultaneous aspect of God fulfilling all "three Roles." Oneness has said, "Father in Creation, Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in the church!"

This strictly successionist form of Modalism seems to fail to be flexible enough to embrace such passages as John 1:1, and Ephesians 4:6.

Oneness fumbles John 1:1-4, by saying "But that's just God's word. God's idea and plan..." And then they add "the Son" (Jesus, born in Bethlehem) was "God in the flesh!" (See Matthew 1:23; Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9, etc.).

* David Bernard actually helps us out a bit here - See the newer editions of Oneness of God, pp.58, " (John 1:1,14). Literally, the Word (God) was tabernacled or tented among us. When did God tabernacle or robe Himself in flesh? In Jesus Christ. Both verses prove that Jesus is God—that He is God manifest (revealed, made known, made evident, displayed, shown) in flesh. "

But the frustration of trying to get Oneness people past the "...Just God's Word" stage is still almost unpalatable.

John 1:14, states that the WORD which "was WITH God" in the beginning was made flesh. So, this "plan" or "idea that God had" wasn't "just God's sayings and thoughts" - it (He) was God Himself (see John 1:1, again).

AND - the Word or Logos co-existed WITH God from eternity past.

I think most Trinitarians might be more successful in their conversations with Oneness people if they dropped "Eternal Son" and do like Dr. Walter Martin had done and just stick with Biblical terminology and say, "eternal Logos, or Word."

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Interesting list of names chiming in ... JG, JD and even our own Praxeas.

I don't play with Godhead ninjas.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

:ursofunny

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

An eternal Son is not a contradiction... But it takes some careful examination to realize how this can be.

You say that the Son had a beginning because he came after the Father. But I say that no matter what moment you choose to look at that the Father existed at that moment. I also say that no matter what moment you choose to look at that the Father not only existed then but he existed before that moment also. I also say that if the Father had a Son that his Son proceeded forth from him the moment after he had been around for the least amount of time. Therefore, let the Father exist in some arbitrary moment. Let the Son exist in the arbitrary moment immediatly after that. Since the Father also existed the moment before that arbitrary moment, then the Son must have existed in that arbitrary moment because he existed the moment after the Father. Therefore, for any arbitrary moment you choose, I can prove that the Son also must have existed in that moment. Therefore assuming the Son is eternal then he existed in every moment that the Father has.

I know I have done a poor job of relating this concept. But think about it, it does make sense ;)

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Oneness, such as in David Bernard's books, does not teach the Son is just flesh.

It teaches the Son is the human incarnation of the one Personal Deity Yahweh and that His Divine nature is ontologically united with the Human, making the Son a person with a Divine and human nature

BTW what is WOTCCC?

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Oneness as far as I know was NEVER successionist. Oneness asserts Father, Son and Spirit, since the incarnation, are similtaneous

Id say the Logos "co-existed with God" is an interpretation.

The Logos was WITH God. With is from the greek pros with has the meaning towards generally. In the accusative it can mean pertaining to and has been translated "within" in certain cases like the Pharisee praying within himself.

John later explains the Logos is Eternal Life pros God. Eternal Life can't be separate or distinct from the Father, particularly since the Father is the SOURCE of Eternal life.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

What is a "Godhead ninja" anyway?

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Godhead Ninja may be one of the coolest terms I have heard in a long time. LOL.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

I have been reading Brian's stuff for years. Doesn't he still go to a UPC church?

My sister got me hooked on his blog back when she thought he could help me, little did she know we were all headed down the same slippery slope.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Brian doesn't attend a UPC church.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Funny, huh ... he is recently married and relocated from N. California.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

He was with JG a while ... correct?

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Yes. As I understand (and according to his blog), he's in Portland now with Western.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Between CLC's valedictorian and salutatorian ... did you get set straight, DG????

:ursofunny

What are they teaching folks there?

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Jesus is God, no matter how smart you are or are supposed to be, it is simple faith and your reaction to your faith that saves us, period, faith leads to response, dt

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

I agree with you on the way it "oughta be;" but the way it is usually seems to follow a successionist mindset:

"Father in creation, Son in redemption and Holy Ghost in the church..." Many Oneness preachers even have a "plan" for doing away with the "Sonship" because they aren't happy with that succession going on for too long.
And yet...

John had every opportunity to tell us that "The Father was made flesh and dwelt among us..." but he never said that. Instead he said that something which had been "with" the Father "in the beginning" was made flesh and dwelt among us.

John and the apostles "beheld His glory" - - - NOT as "the Father manifest in the flesh..." BUT as "as of the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14).

There is clearly a complexity that John is trying to convey to us concerning the nature of God. Yes, "God was manifest in the flesh" because the Word (Logos) was and is God (John 1:1).

But again, why all the verbal gymnastics in John 1:1-14? Why not just tell us "Jesus is God" just like a Oneness preacher today would and skip all of the "pros ton theon..." verbiage?

The Logos was "begotten of the Father."

The Logos was "with God" in the beginning.

The Logos was made flesh and dwelt "among us" (the apostles and that time period).

As a man, the Logos prayed to the Father and longed for the "glory" that the Logos had "with the Father" "before the world was."

The Logos is clearly indicated as being "something" which shares the Nature and Deity of Almighty God - yet the Logos is also clearly "something" that is distinct from God the Father.

See also, Ephesians 4:6 - God in His transcendence (above all) is self contradictory to God in His immanence (through all).

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Oneness people aren't saved?

Well some of 'em ain't. Not sure about the percentage, or how that percentage relates to other denominations.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

That doesn't mean that the Father ceases to exist, then the Son and what is left is the HS.

Well if the Father was made flesh that really would be going from one mode to another...

They beheld the glory of the Logos that was pros TonTheon, made flesh.

Which John said is the LIFE

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--

And Jesus says the Father is the source of Eternal LIFE

Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

Which Life John says is the Light
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

God IS Light.

1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Seems the Son is the Life of God made flesh

I agree

I don't know why John worded it like that in John 1 other than the thought that he was making an argument for those in his day that held to a logos philosophy.

My view is that the Logos pertains To God and is internal to God.

Jesus himself speaks of coming out from God
Joh 16:27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came out from God.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

John 1 is Hellenistic- and 2nd Temple Judaistic-friendly. Perhaps John was looking to make a shocking point to his Jewish people in his audience:

http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010...moses-in-john/

You have consider that pros is translated "within" in Luke 18:11 because of the middle voice verb and the reflexive pronoun heauton: the Pharisee does and is the recipient of the action, so it is only proper for "within" to be the proper translation there. The only place I know where pros is translated "pertaining to" is in Hebrews, but there the preposition modifies nouns, not a verb as in John 1:1b.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Yes, I agree with you. In my estimation you've "gotten it right." But from my experience in teaching and preaching for a couple a decades in the Oneness movement, you will get blank stares and quite often outright confrontation if you start talking in "non-successionist" terms.
I agree - and I like the connection between John 1 and 1 John 1.

Jesus at least asserts that He is "the Way, the Truth and the Life..." (John 14:6). I feel pretty good taking His word for this.

However, John opens by saying that He is the Logos - the "Word of God" and "the only begotten of the Father."

How do you see "begotten" in this context? "Begotten" as in "the Holy Ghost shall overshadow thee..." and then born Bethlehem? [/quote]
I see the Logos as not only "internal" to God but also being a manifestation in this world of what the Father could not do or become because of His transcendence.

The Father is too remote for us to ever comprehend. God, in all of His glory and holiness, is simply to lofty for our mortal comprehension (Isaiah 55:9).

And so, we simply cannot reach nor comprehend "the heavens" (analogously in the ancient world).

BUT! As the heavens send the rain and the snow upon the earth, so also does the Logos (The Word of God) reach out from that lofty holiness and bless us revelation, hope and salvation (Isaiah 55:10-11).

The Word is God - but is a manifestation of the transcendent God as immanence through this mortal realm ("One God who is above all (transcendent), through all (immanent) and in you all (the Holy Ghost in the church) Ephesians 4:6.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

I think it is translated pertaining to in Romans too.,

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

Is "only begotten" referring to the Logos or the Son?

Also Monogenes is better translated only or unique

Internal to God and external. Sure. BTW this from the ISBE on the greek word Logos is interesting
Logos signifies in classical Greek both “reason” and “word.” Though in Biblical Greek the term is mostly employed in the sense of “word,” we cannot properly dissociate the two significations. Every word implies a thought. It is impossible to imagine a time when God was without thought. Hence, thought must be eternal as the Deity. The translation “thought” is probably the best equivalent for the Greek term, since it denotes, on the one hand, the faculty of reason, or the thought inwardly conceived in the mind; and, on the other hand, the thought outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language. The two ideas, thought and speech, are indubitably blended in the term logos; and in every employment of the word, in philosophy and Scripture, both notions of thought and its outward expression are intimately connected.


Agreed

Agreed

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

No, that is kata not pros. Point with pros meaning "pertaining to" is that is happens when pros modifies a noun(s). I've searched virtually every occurrence with a verb and it in just about every case it means "to," "toward," or "with."

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

You're right, that's not pros in Romans.

So let me ask, are you saying pros can not be translated "pertaining to" unless it modifies a noun?

Isn't pros modifying the noun logos in Jn 1? What was with God?

What about the pharisee that prayed (verb) within himself?

BTW Im not saying it has to be "pertaining to", but my point is the preposition is like like para. It doesn't necessarily mean location. In fact it's more directional (towards), and as I have shown with the accusative it can be "pertaining to" and even (in some translations) within.

usually with the accus. the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):—about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, × at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in)
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So what is meant by "with" or even "to" and "toward"?

Toward is directional. And we have with in the context what the word does. The word points to God or reveals God. And that is what Jesus did when here too. He pointed to God. The Logos reveals God and that's probably why some thing logos is "self disclosure".

However one still can not avoid John's own use of Eternal life

I think the topic of the Logos is actually much deeper than what Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals make it out to be.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

I have been saying this for eight years now. It was Dr. Seagraves lectures that opened my eyes to the gospel. Looking back I am not so sure if it was his teaching or the fact that he just went straight through Romans and Galatians and taught from scriptures that I had never heard preached. It was probably just the presentation of scripture without the UPC doctrine inserted that allowed my UPC foundation to crumble. The word cut me deep.

I do remember Dr. Seagraves making the case that the UPC bylaws supported scripture and making the case that many of the things taught in local UPC churches were not only against scripture but also the UPC bylaws.

It seems to me that Brian beat my sister out for valedictorian and it was my BIL that beat out Cassandra one year later. But I might be wrong about that.

All that seems so far away now. I don't consider myself Pentecostal anymore nor really care to have any connection with the UPC other than those who have gone through it and came out and because most of my family is in the UPC. There are some great people who have influenced me within the UPC though and for that I am grateful but I have left the movement completely and am at peace.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

I think you are right on the timeline! I'll ask her. Looks like the ladies came in second place.

Good thing some have kept the faith, huh?

I find the exodus of many CLCers from this time period (1990's to mid 2000's) to be an interesting case study .... and I do think the influence of Yadon and Segraves has a lot to do with it ... all under the Haney watch.

It would appear CLC replaced Jackson in the apostate category.

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

BTW, DG, we are eternally grateful to your sister and BIL for the important role they played in our wedding. Great couple!

Re: Oneness people aren't saved?
 

I really wish this could be documented. Because Searaves, who I have never met, has influenced my life in such a way.

I have heard it said that the problem is students would take "Romans and Galatians" and then forget everything else they learned from CLC or leave after one semester only to be changed forever.