Oneness people aren't saved?

[jpr7]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

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/

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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 - 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]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jpr7

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.

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

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?

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

Also Monogenes is better translated only or unique

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.

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.

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).

Agreed

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.

Agreed

[jpr7]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jpr7

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."

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 (Unregistered) -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.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by DAII

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



What are they teaching folks there?

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.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

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.

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.

[DAII]

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

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by DAII

I think you are right on the timeline! I'll ask her.

I find the exodus of many CLCers from this time period to be interesting .... and I do think the influence of Yadon and Segraves has a lot to do with it.

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.