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.