[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

It gets tiresome and even slanderous that some of us can't be questioned on our logic, traditions and approach to many of these issues without being labeled a liar or false claiming.

I will not ask for an apology as these recent posts questioning my integrity as a Oneness child of God infer I'm a lying Oneness believer ...

This knife cuts both ways. I didn't call you a liar. I truly don't understand why you chide Oneness folks who are discussing doctrine with Trinitarians.

however, please note that there are many on this forum, mostly PCIers, who will not quibble w/ one statement I've made on this thread.

They often do not post in these type of topics, I speculate, because those who maintain they are our Oneness brethren will do as some have here ....and impugn their reputations w/ false accusations as not being Apostolic or Oneness enough.

This is not Elpey's thread which questions whether Trinitarians are lost, but a doctrinal thread on who the Son is and basically on the Oneness doctrine. None of us are condemning this Trinitarian to hell or even questioning his salvation. If we were I could understand your defense of this Trinitarian but we are discussing doctrine on God. So why are you continually cheerleading the Trinitarian point of view or at the least being extremely sypathetic to the point of opposing your fellow Oneness believers? That is what is confusing me. I put it down to your decision to be tolerant but your doing it at the expense of alienating your brethren. This Trinitarian doesn't need a protector on this site. He appears able to handle the discussion.

I've even had accusations that I have not been taught Apostolic principles in a proper manner by my pastor and father. {Which may be entirely another issue that is now dead}

Rehashing an accusation from another thread. An inappropiate accusation but not related to the discussion on this thread.

Furthermore, BD, Oneness pioneer Andrew Urshan had no issues using the term three-in-one, or triune. He used it w/ regularity in his books to describe God.

Urshan, father of Nathaniel Urshan, objected to the use of the term "oneness" preferring to describe God as a "tri-unity" or "Three-One God" in his book: The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ, (pgs 6,42,78,93) or : The Blessed Three-ness of the Godhead. WG 4 (July 1923), 2-4.

Are we to question his integrity as a Oneness believer also? I think not.

Dan, you're more Oneness than I am, so why don't you defend it?

This also is part of the problem with some modern OPs. They have solidified their thinking to the point that any mention of what may be deemed as as Trinitarian language is ANATHEMA.

If you want cheerleaders, BD and Mizpeh, you have quite a few already. My poms-poms are mainly reserved for other issues. This united front argument has serious holes and wreaks of "us against them", IMO.

Dan, I just don't want to explain myself to a fellow Oneness believer who appears to be siding with an opposite belief whether its JW or Mormonism or Trinitarianism.

I will not, and do not see in our forum rules, where I have to agree with your logic or approach.

I have and always affirm to be Oneness. If questioning logic, history, or aspects of our own doctrines on some these issues is deemed as promotion of Trinitarianism than we need to define promotion as a forum.

I was asking you to spread the love around, Dan. Give it up for your Oneness brethren once in awhile who are promoting the Oneness of God.