For those that left the UPC...

[missourimary]

Ah, ok, I see. For the record, your response was to SavedLou, not me... I didn't say anything about jewelry or picking and choosing, but thanks for the clarification. Also for the record, I personally respect those who may have convictions of their own but don't dictate them to others. I also respect those that don't discredit others' convictions... or liberty. That's not directed to anyone, just where I stand on it.

[Sabby]

I studied at a Baptist seminary for a year and developed a dialogue with Gerry Breshears, the Theology head (also a former astro-physicist). He was an instructor for my apologetics course.
Gerry told me that he had a lot of interaction with ops at the seminary's No. Cali campus and the biggest difference he observed between his baptist godhead position and the position of ops was "semantics".
Recently a op preacher was added as an adjunct prof at the above named campus. (Can you say PRAISE GOD!).
Gerry co-wrote with Mark Driscoll one of the BEST Jesus' Name books I've read called, "Vintage Jesus". There was one sentence in the book that was a swipe at oneness that looked like something cut and pasted from Walter Martin's book, so I emailed Gerry about it. He told me that should have NEVER been included in the final rough draft. (I kept the email). Gerry asked me what about John 17? I gave him my "best shot".
The point of all this is that most of the differences we have with our trinitarian brothers is over our use of words. Both sides need to drop the extra-biblical biases.
Granted, there are some tritheists out there, but like Sam said, there are oneness people that border on modalism.
Sola Scriptura!

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

I studied at a Baptist seminary for a year and developed a dialogue with Gerry Breshears, the Theology head (also a former astro-physicist). He was an instructor for my apologetics course.
Gerry told me that he had a lot of interaction with ops at the seminary's No. Cali campus and the biggest difference he observed between his baptist godhead position and the position of ops was "semantics".
Recently a op preacher was added as an adjunct prof at the above named campus. (Can you say PRAISE GOD!).
Gerry co-wrote with Mark Driscoll one of the BEST Jesus' Name books I've read called, "Vintage Jesus". There was one sentence in the book that was a swipe at oneness that looked like something cut and pasted from Walter Martin's book, so I emailed Gerry about it. He told me that should have NEVER been included in the final rough draft. (I kept the email). Gerry asked me what about John 17? I gave him my "best shot".
The point of all this is that most of the differences we have with our trinitarian brothers is over our use of words. Both sides need to drop the extra-biblical biases.
Granted, there are some tritheists out there, but like Sam said, there are oneness people that border on modalism.
Sola Scriptura!

We are claimed to be modalistic monarchists by some of the greatest OP scholoars. The truth is most trinitarians who only truly believe in one God are not really trinitarians. We can see the catholic trinity pictures as an old man, young man, and a bird around the throne. I think the spirit of trinity is to infact claim three separate persons, not in one being but of the same substance, which in fact borders on tritheism.

My Dad believes there are three that are only one in purpose, but three separate in heaven.

however I would definitely admit many trins do in fact truly believe in One God being, in three personalities as they call it. Which is closer to oneness but not quite there.

[Sabby]

I think just because they use the term "personalities" doesn't mean they are almost oneness.
Again, it's semantic.
I don't know any christians that believe that there is more than One. The way we define him is different. As ops we define him according to op terms, and trinitarians define Him in their terms.
We really have much more to bring us to fellowship with them than to disown them as non-believers/Christians.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

I think just because they use the term "personalities" doesn't mean they are almost oneness.
Again, it's semantic.
I don't know any christians that believe that there is more than One.

Shingle, I see your point as per semantics. However, there is definitely a reason beyond semantics that makes a believer get rebaptized in the Name of Jesus Christ (though he was already baptized using Father, Son, Holy Ghost). What'd ya think?

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

The way we define him is different. As ops we define him according to op terms, and trinitarians define Him in their terms.
We really have much more to bring us to fellowship with them than to disown them as non-believers/Christians.

Would it not be a lil bit difficult to have true unadulterated fellowship when you hear statements like:
"Please God!!! Send Jesus to come get us today!!!!"

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

I think just because they use the term "personalities" doesn't mean they are almost oneness.
Again, it's semantic.
I don't know any christians that believe that there is more than One. The way we define him is different. As ops we define him according to op terms, and trinitarians define Him in their terms.
We really have much more to bring us to fellowship with them than to disown them as non-believers/Christians.

I didn't say they were almost oneness. I know many christians who believe they will see three in heaven.

Whether only one be God or not its hard to tell.

[Sabby]

To God Be The Glory,

It's a matter of illuminination. I was baptized in a Missionary Baptist Church prior to receiving the Holy Ghost. It was explained to me in terms of "becoming a member of this church" and as an outward sign of an inward work identifying myself with my fellow-believers in that local church. I was sincere.
However,
Six months later I had received the Holy Ghost and my pastor explained to me the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the power of the name in which all Heaven and earth is named, and the day of Pentecost sermon and "altar call" by Peter, I had no choice but to be "buried with him in baptism". How could I ignore this truth?
I understoond why I was baptized in the name of F,S&HG, but a greater truth was explained to me, much like Aquila and Priscilla to Apollos in the book of Acts.
A&Ps attitude is important. They entreated Apollos like a brother...they didn't run him off or brand him as a heretic. The Acts narrative also implies that Apollos was baptizing, albeit not in the name of Jesus (probably John's baptism).
The lesson learned is that there still some honest seekers out there much like Apollos that have been baptized differently (ne: John's baptism) but should be entreated.

One Faith 2,
I agree that there may be some Christians you have met that think they will see three. So what's your approach? Smack 'em in the name of Jesus, or befriend them and entreat them and show them Jesus?
As far as how we should treat those horrible trinitarians, what is your suggestion? We've MUCH more in common with them than a moslem, a buddhist, shintoist, or any other eastern religion.
I am NOT saying that we shouldn't hold the truth dear and not let it go!

"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." Proverbs 23:23

I am not suggesting compromising and saying it's alright to do it either way. I am saying our attitude is everything.

"But if ye (followers of Jesus) bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another" Galatians 5:15


JMHO: There are more Apollos' out there than we would ever know who can help us win the world for Jesus if only they'd be respected and entreated rather than denigrated.

1 Faith, when was the last time you had a sit-down weekly Bible study with a "secular" christian and showed them the light?

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Sam

It's really sad, isn't it? There is a whole generation who have no idea that the prohibition on women's slacks and the prohibition on jewelry and the prohibition on women trimming or cutting their hair is actually "new" Pentecost and not the "old paths." Also, the insistence on water and Spirit baptism as being the "new birth" or "birth of water and Spirit" is one of the newer innovations and was not "old time" Apostolic or Pentecostal.

AMEN

[ILG]

Jesus Himself said in the book of Matthew to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. I wonder if Jesus was messed up about His theology when He said that. I mean, the NAME is supposed to be Jesus, right? So, if a pastor baptizes saying I baptize you in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, after someone believes in that name, I would suppose he was baptizing in that name, right?

But, if someone wants to create an exclusive doctrine, they ignore that baptizing in the name is baptizing in the name, while saying that the name is Jesus and that name must be uttered for efficacy. I guess Jesus said those words to confuse people, so He could laugh when they got it wrong, according to some.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

Jesus Himself said in the book of Matthew to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. I wonder if Jesus was messed up about His theology when He said that. I mean, the NAME is supposed to be Jesus, right? So, if a pastor baptizes saying I baptize you in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, after someone believes in that name, I would suppose he was baptizing in that name, right?

But, if someone wants to create an exclusive doctrine, they ignore that baptizing in the name is baptizing in the name, while saying that the name is Jesus and that name must be uttered for efficacy. I guess Jesus said those words to confuse people, so He could laugh when they got it wrong, according to some.

The only scripture the NT church possessed was the OT.

When Jesus spoke Matthew 28:19, they knew He was speaking of Isaiah 9:6, among others. If they simply said, Father, son and Holy Ghost, they would only have repeated what Jesus said to do and not obey what He was teaching them. "I and my Father are one."

Jesus taught them from the very scriptures they were familiar with - "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27)

That is why Peter could say, "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

And why Peter could also say, "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. (II Peter 3:18)

They studied from what we now call the Old Testament. Those in Thessalonica testify of what they studied and where they got their information to verify the words of the Apostles.

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

ILG, when we already know these things, church leadership cannot hurt us. Disappoint, yes, but you should have already know this as you helped pastor a church. I know that was blunt, but it's true.