Is the Father the Son?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Mizpeh, I am concerned that Dan may only be a professing "oneness folk"... but in reality, in his mind the only difference between oneness and trintarians are semantics. What I have observed from Dan in this thread is a constant assault on basic oneness logic and presentation of their theology. The problem here is when a person fails to realize the real difference between oneness and trinitarian theology, they have in effect accepted a theology that embraces a godhead that is contrary to the God presented in the bible. The three-in-one God of the trinitarians is a completely foreign concept from the God of the Hebrew scriptures and Greek New Testament. Any theology that presents God as anything else but ONE is not a biblical theology. Three-in-one IS NOT one.

Deut 6:4
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The thing that bothers me is Dan will read your reply to his post and instead of affirming what you say with an Amen or I agree, he will be offensive and resist your remarks with something contrary. He says he is Oneness but fights against those that hold his own doctrine to support an opposite opinion.

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 ...

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.

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}

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.

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.

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.

As I read the rules they state:
On matters of doctrine, feel free to post your views supported with scripture. It is okay to disagree, just let the conversation flow, letting go of the need to prove yourself right.

Secondly, if I understand the forum policy ... promotion is proselytizing. If this is the case , then I have never told someone to believe in 3 persons, as by conscience I cannot. It also seems odd that we would invite trinitarians to post here and debate us on our beliefs but do not also see it as a form of promotion by allowing a platform.

[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.