Camouflage Oneness on your website

[TRFrance]

I dont want to get into a long drawn out debate on Oneness doctrine, but allow me to remind some of the brethren of a simple fact here, if I may:

The Bible makes it clear that the son was Son was begotten.
...Meaning he was brought into existence at a particular period in time.
...Meaning that [before he was begotten] there was a time when he did not yet exist.

Therefore the Son could not have eternally existed in God, if he was indeed begotten. That which is begotten coulnt NOT have eternally pre-existed. That is not only logically impossible, but it's a concept not taught in scripture. It's important to not that the bible repeatedly refers to the begotten Son, but never to the eternal (i.e. eternally preexistent) Son. This is elementary Godhead doctrine for us to keep in mind.

Therefore, any reference to the eternal pre-existence of the Son is Trinitarian language, plain and simple.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Sam

Many years ago I had a UPC preacher say to me, "I don't believe in three persons but I believe in three personalities." He later became a Dist. Supt. with the UPC.

There certainly is a variety under the umbrella of Oneness. That new avatar gives you added authority Sam.

A.D. Urshan even used the term Triune.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Do you believe that the Word existed prior to the incarnation? ....

Yes, in my opinion the Word was: God revealed; God manifested; the invisible God made visible; the transcendent God becoming involved; the high and lofty one brought down among us; the untouchable God made touchable; the far off God brought close; etc.

That Word/Memra/Logos is also known as the Angel of YHWH or ha Kavod (the glory of the Messiah) in the Old Testament. As the Word, YHWH wrestled with Jacob, appeared to Isaiah, appeared to Joshua as the Captain of the Lord's host, appeared to the elders of Israel sitting on a throne, etc. That Word, the form of God or the visible part of God later became flesh and dwelt among us.

In the Old Testament, YHWH was Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.
In the New Testament, YHWH is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

There certainly is a variety under the umbrella of Oneness. That new avatar gives you added authority Sam.

A.D. Urshan even used the term Triune.

Hope the avatar is not offensive to anyone.
I do not mean any disrespect to Bro. Haney.

Yes, AD Urshan used the word "triune." If I remember correctly he also used the term "three-one" God in his book "The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ." Also, part of the PCI manual was displayed on one of these forums and they actually used the word "tinity" in it in describing the oneness doctrine.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

...
A.D. Urshan even used the term Triune.

A while back, I read two different autobiographies of Andrew Urshan. One was printed serially in several magazines in 1946. The other was written in 1918 and is available from the UPC publishing house. The book from 1918 tells about his birth and childhood and conversion as a young man in Persia, his trip to the U.S., his baptism in the Spirit, and his ministry in the U.S., Persia, and Russia. There is no mention of his baptism in Jesus' name (unless I missed it). The magazine articles covered a lot of the same information but they do talk about baptism in Jesus' name. Andrew Urshan was sprinkled as a baby in the Presbyterian manner. Later as a young man he was immersed. He later had some questions concerning water baptism and came to the conclusion that, "The Lord Jesus Christ is the One Proper Name of the whole Deity for this Gospel dispensation because in Him, Jesus Christ our Lord, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells and to Him all the power in Heaven and earth was given" He goes on to say, "...This was indeed a wonderful revelation of the Trinity in Christ....seeing the great value of the baptism invested in faith in the One Name of the triune God..." He goes on to say that he had a tract published about this revelation, that he had Acts 2:38 painted above the baptistry tank and that he began to baptize new converts "into the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ which is the One Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is on page 10 of a magazine titled The Witness of God, edition no. 3 of 1946. He said this happened in 1910 while pastoring an assembly at Sheffield and Montana Street in Chicago, Illinois. It is interesting that although he started baptizing new converts this way, he did not practice rebaptism. He later went back to Persia and then to Russia. In 1915 while preaching in Russia, he hoped no one would want to be water baptized because he knew it had become a controversy in the U.S. and he did not want to join in with either side of the issue. He did decide not to do any baptizing unless some one specifically requested baptism using the name of Jesus. A new convert came to him, pointing to Acts 8:16 in a Bible, and asked for baptism according to this verse. Several days later they went out into the woods to a river, cleared away two feet of snow, broke a hole trough the ice and baptized several people. There were more converts and a few days later more wanted to be baptized. Bro. Urshan preached on Isaiah 9:6 about "the sonship of Jesus and the Divine Fatherhood in Him." He then talked about baptism in Jesus' Name. As a result some who had been previously baptized requested rebaptism.

Here is what Bro. Urshan wrote about his attitude toward rebaptism.
"I objected to such a thing then. I had come to the conclusion to baptize the new repenting souls in Jesus Christ's name, but never those who were already baptized. In spite of my personal feeling on the subject, I was almost begged to baptize some who once were already baptized.... I tried to discourage it, and told the folks it was not necessary at all and that it would bring trouble and division among them. I went as far as to tell them of the havoc that very thing had created in America and then I plainly stated that i would not rebaptize them.... I prayed hard against rebaptism and branded it to be a trick of the devil to destroy that good revival." When they insisted on being rebaptized, he told them to go ahead and rebaptize one another. He told them that he himself had not been rebaptized and wanted to return to America and discuss it more fully with people there. Finally they prevailed upon him and he asked an elderly Spirit filled Russian to rebaptise him and then he baptized about 75 people in Jesus' Name. This is from pages 10 and 11 of The Witness of God, August 1946.

Even though he had now been rebaptized, when Bro. Urshan returned to the U.S. he continued to fellowship and preach among those who practiced both types of baptism. Later, he was forced to choose sides and he sided with the "New Issue" or Jesus' name baptism.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sam

Yes, in my opinion the Word was: God revealed; God manifested; the invisible God made visible; the transcendent God becoming involved; the high and lofty one brought down among us; the untouchable God made touchable; the far off God brought close; etc.

That Word/Memra/Logos is also known as the Angel of YHWH or ha Kavod (the glory of the Messiah) in the Old Testament. As the Word, YHWH wrestled with Jacob, appeared to Isaiah, appeared to Joshua as the Captain of the Lord's host, appeared to the elders of Israel sitting on a throne, etc. That Word, the form of God or the visible part of God later became flesh and dwelt among us.

In the Old Testament, YHWH was Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.
In the New Testament, YHWH is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would boil that down to One God and one mediator in the Old and New Testament. The Angel in the Old the Son in the New.

Not two eternal persons of God.

[tv1a]

I don't give a rat's rear end what doctrinal statement one has or hasn't on their website. It's waste of space to put a doctrinal statement on a website. The goal of most websites is to draw an interest in the church. A doctrinal statement is a hindrance no matter what stance is preferred.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Thanks for adding the perspective.

My initial sense was not along the lines that you were exploring the
<b>

"why and what are the benefits/drawbacks to the carefully worded texts on these websites. "

</b>

It seemed the challenge being introduced was focusing on "why do we deny what we believe rather than just putting it out there"?

I will pause and see how the replys are formed and how your moderating directs the discussion.

regards,
tbpew

As far as what? WHen it comes to Oneness who is denying what they believe?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Saying "three personalities" doesn't seem like it would go over in a Oneness group. I don't believe in three personalities - that sounds like they are different mindsets - and I'm sure not a typical Oneness person.

Maybe so, however Orthodox Trinitarianism is three persons, not three personalities depending on how one uses the word. Personality tends to be external while persons in the trinitarian use from the greek hypostasis is internal

[Praxeas]

Modalism is often referred to as a Trinitarian heresy....because there were three somethings in unity and one God. They just denied those three somethings were three distinct persons