Oneness people aren't saved?

[deltaguitar]

I have been reading Brian's stuff for years. Doesn't he still go to a UPC church?

My sister got me hooked on his blog back when she thought he could help me, little did she know we were all headed down the same slippery slope.

[Jeffrey]

Brian doesn't attend a UPC church.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I have been reading Brian's stuff for years. Doesn't he still go to a UPC church?

My sister got me hooked on his blog back when she thought he could help me, little did she know we were all headed down the same slippery slope.

Funny, huh ... he is recently married and relocated from N. California.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Brian doesn't attend a UPC church.

He was with JG a while ... correct?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by DAII

He was with JG a while ... correct?

Yes. As I understand (and according to his blog), he's in Portland now with Western.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I have been reading Brian's stuff for years. Doesn't he still go to a UPC church?

My sister got me hooked on his blog back when she thought he could help me, little did she know we were all headed down the same slippery slope.

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



What are they teaching folks there?

[DividedThigh]

Jesus is God, no matter how smart you are or are supposed to be, it is simple faith and your reaction to your faith that saves us, period, faith leads to response, dt

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oneness as far as I know was NEVER successionist. Oneness asserts Father, Son and Spirit, since the incarnation, are similtaneous

I agree with you on the way it "oughta be;" but the way it is usually seems to follow a successionist mindset:

"Father in creation, Son in redemption and Holy Ghost in the church..." Many Oneness preachers even have a "plan" for doing away with the "Sonship" because they aren't happy with that succession going on for too long.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Id say the Logos "co-existed with God" is an interpretation.

The Logos was WITH God. With is from the greek pros with has the meaning towards generally. In the accusative it can mean pertaining to and has been translated "within" in certain cases like the Pharisee praying within himself.

John later explains the Logos is Eternal Life pros God. Eternal Life can't be separate or distinct from the Father, particularly since the Father is the SOURCE of Eternal life.

And yet...

John had every opportunity to tell us that "The Father was made flesh and dwelt among us..." but he never said that. Instead he said that something which had been "with" the Father "in the beginning" was made flesh and dwelt among us.

John and the apostles "beheld His glory" - - - NOT as "the Father manifest in the flesh..." BUT as "as of the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14).

There is clearly a complexity that John is trying to convey to us concerning the nature of God. Yes, "God was manifest in the flesh" because the Word (Logos) was and is God (John 1:1).

But again, why all the verbal gymnastics in John 1:1-14? Why not just tell us "Jesus is God" just like a Oneness preacher today would and skip all of the "pros ton theon..." verbiage?

The Logos was "begotten of the Father."

The Logos was "with God" in the beginning.

The Logos was made flesh and dwelt "among us" (the apostles and that time period).

As a man, the Logos prayed to the Father and longed for the "glory" that the Logos had "with the Father" "before the world was."

The Logos is clearly indicated as being "something" which shares the Nature and Deity of Almighty God - yet the Logos is also clearly "something" that is distinct from God the Father.

See also, Ephesians 4:6 - God in His transcendence (above all) is self contradictory to God in His immanence (through all).

[ChTatum]

Oneness people aren't saved?

Well some of 'em ain't. Not sure about the percentage, or how that percentage relates to other denominations.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

I agree with you on the way it "oughta be;" but the way it is usually seems to follow a successionist mindset:

"Father in creation, Son in redemption and Holy Ghost in the church..." Many Oneness preachers even have a "plan" for doing away with the "Sonship" because they aren't happy with that succession going on for too long.

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

And yet...

John had every opportunity to tell us that "The Father was made flesh and dwelt among us..." but he never said that. Instead he said that something which had been "with" the Father "in the beginning" was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Well if the Father was made flesh that really would be going from one mode to another...

John and the apostles "beheld His glory" - - - NOT as "the Father manifest in the flesh..." BUT as "as of the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14).

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

There is clearly a complexity that John is trying to convey to us concerning the nature of God. Yes, "God was manifest in the flesh" because the Word (Logos) was and is God (John 1:1).

I agree

But again, why all the verbal gymnastics in John 1:1-14? Why not just tell us "Jesus is God" just like a Oneness preacher today would and skip all of the "pros ton theon..." verbiage?


The Logos was "begotten of the Father."

The Logos was "with God" in the beginning.

The Logos was made flesh and dwelt "among us" (the apostles and that time period).

As a man, the Logos prayed to the Father and longed for the "glory" that the Logos had "with the Father" "before the world was."

The Logos is clearly indicated as being "something" which shares the Nature and Deity of Almighty God - yet the Logos is also clearly "something" that is distinct from God the Father.

See also, Ephesians 4:6 - God in His transcendence (above all) is self contradictory to God in His immanence (through all).

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.