Our Trinitarian Brothers and Sisters in Christ

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Tertullian coined the phrase "personae" into Latin from the old Etruscan word for a theater mask. He did so around the time of 180 A.D. "Personae" was intended to be a Latin translation for the Greek word "hypo-stasis." Until that time there was no word in Latin for this idea.

- hypo-stasis means "hupo" or "under" + "stasis" or condition, nature or state of being. Hypo-stasis was the term for the fundamental nature of a thing or a being, in this case the fundamental state of God's being.

He also coined many new terms like "trintas" and so forth. Modern scholars have counted well over 100 words that Tertullian introduced into the Latin vocabulary.

Most importantly, he did NOT use the word "personae" in the same sense that the word "person" is used today. After he died and in the midst of the terrible persecutions and the later civil wars within the Roman Empire his writings were lost. They were not rediscovered until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

That means the guy who could best explain what he meant by "Person" and "Trinity" - the guy who coined the terms - was silent [in the West] for over 1,000 years of theological debate and formulation. His writings were not even extant at the time of Nicea in 325. He was only known from second hand references in the writings of others.

It is "modern scholarship" that has unraveled the mysteries around Tertullian's theology, and "modern scholarship" that has shown just how shaky the ground is beneath "Orthodox Trinitarianism."

Sadly, OP's tend to revile "modern scholarship" more vociferously than they do their hated Trinitarian foes. It's amazing what we could learn if we set aside our prejudices. We might even discover - much to our own amazement! - that we were right about a few things and that most people have come to see that.

[Amanah]

Pel - I need to respectfully ask you something, because I want to understand.

Would you say that there is no distinction between standard Oneness doctrine on the Godhead, and standard Trinitarian doctrine on the Godhead?

I don't think Trinitarians view it that way

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/optrin.html



HERESY?

We have seen that the Oneness doctrine of God is not faithful to the Biblical revelation of the Father and Son as two persons, and that the Oneness rejection of the Trinity is in error. The question now must be asked how serious an error this is, since theological errors vary in their harmfulness.

Evangelicals commonly suppose that a professed Christian movement may be judged orthodox or heretical simply on the basis of whether or not it affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. Consequently, some Christians have concluded that the Oneness doctrine, despite its denial of the Trinity, is essentially Christian.

This is far too simplistic, however. While it is true that adherence to the two natures of Christ is critical to orthodoxy, and while most pseudo-Christian sects do deny that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simply affirming the two natures is not enough. Indeed, it is possible to call Jesus "God" and still have "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4), if in calling Him "God" one means something significantly different from what the Bible means.

Such is the case with the Oneness understanding of the deity of Christ. When Oneness believers say that Jesus is God, what they mean is that He is the Father. That is not what the Bible means, as we have seen. Rather, when the Bible says that Jesus is "God," it means that He exists eternally as a divine person in relationship with the Father; or, to use the Church's theological shorthand, it means that He is the second person of the triune God.

The apostle John warns us, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Oneness Pentecostals will not admit to denying the Son, of course; but that should come as no surprise. It is doubtful that any heretic, including those about whom John specifically warned, has ever admitted to denying the Son. Instead, heretics of all kinds have simply redefined the meaning of the term "Son" (and along with it the meaning of "Father"). Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses define "Son" as "direct creation," while the Mormons claim that Jesus is the "Son" of God by virtue of having been begotten through physical union between God and Mary. The Oneness redefinition of "Son" as the human nature of Jesus (and "Father" as His divine nature) may be less offensive than the Mormon version, and less obvious than that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is a redefinition nonetheless. The fact is that the Son and the Father are two persons, co-existing eternally in relationship with one another. To deny this fact is to deny the biblical Son, and thus to have a false view of Jesus.

It turns out, then, that one's view of Christ cannot be separated from one's view of the Trinity. Deny the Trinity, and you will lose the Biblical Christ; affirm the Christ of Scripture, the Christ who was sent by the Father and who sent the Holy Spirit, and you will find that your God is the Trinity. It is, in fact, the doctrine of the Trinity that is the distinctive feature of the Christian revelation of the nature of the true God. As Calvin expressed it: "For He so proclaims Himself the sole God as to offer Himself to be contemplated clearly in three persons. Unless we grasp these, only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God." (38) Only the Christian God is triune, and consequently, to deny the Trinity is to say that, historically, Judaism and Islam have been right about the being of God, while Christianity has been wrong. Oneness writers have said as much. (39) Therefore, while there may be individual Oneness believers who are saved [Editor's Note: If, like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, a Oneness believer does not have faith in the Biblical Jesus, then how can it be considered possible that such a person is saved?], the Christian community has no choice but to regard the Oneness movement as a whole as having departed from the Christian faith.

We must conclude, then, that the Oneness teaching is a heresy, that it denies a fundamental, basic belief of biblical Christianity, and that those churches and denominations which teach this heresy are actually pseudo-Christian sects. In popular Evangelical terminology, such a heretical sect is known as a "cult," a term which simply means that the group's beliefs are in some important respect non-Christian.

In this sense, we regretfully conclude that the Oneness churches are indeed cults, and we urge Christians to reach out to Oneness believers in love and share with them the triune God revealed in the Scriptures.

[Amanah]

Pel please comment for me, thanks

Originally Posted by Amanah

Pel - I need to respectfully ask you something, because I want to understand.

Would you say that there is no distinction between standard Oneness doctrine on the Godhead, and standard Trinitarian doctrine on the Godhead?

I don't think Trinitarians view it that way

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/optrin.html



HERESY?

We have seen that the Oneness doctrine of God is not faithful to the Biblical revelation of the Father and Son as two persons, and that the Oneness rejection of the Trinity is in error. The question now must be asked how serious an error this is, since theological errors vary in their harmfulness.

Evangelicals commonly suppose that a professed Christian movement may be judged orthodox or heretical simply on the basis of whether or not it affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. Consequently, some Christians have concluded that the Oneness doctrine, despite its denial of the Trinity, is essentially Christian.

This is far too simplistic, however. While it is true that adherence to the two natures of Christ is critical to orthodoxy, and while most pseudo-Christian sects do deny that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simply affirming the two natures is not enough. Indeed, it is possible to call Jesus "God" and still have "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4), if in calling Him "God" one means something significantly different from what the Bible means.

Such is the case with the Oneness understanding of the deity of Christ. When Oneness believers say that Jesus is God, what they mean is that He is the Father. That is not what the Bible means, as we have seen. Rather, when the Bible says that Jesus is "God," it means that He exists eternally as a divine person in relationship with the Father; or, to use the Church's theological shorthand, it means that He is the second person of the triune God.

The apostle John warns us, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Oneness Pentecostals will not admit to denying the Son, of course; but that should come as no surprise. It is doubtful that any heretic, including those about whom John specifically warned, has ever admitted to denying the Son. Instead, heretics of all kinds have simply redefined the meaning of the term "Son" (and along with it the meaning of "Father"). Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses define "Son" as "direct creation," while the Mormons claim that Jesus is the "Son" of God by virtue of having been begotten through physical union between God and Mary. The Oneness redefinition of "Son" as the human nature of Jesus (and "Father" as His divine nature) may be less offensive than the Mormon version, and less obvious than that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is a redefinition nonetheless. The fact is that the Son and the Father are two persons, co-existing eternally in relationship with one another. To deny this fact is to deny the biblical Son, and thus to have a false view of Jesus.

It turns out, then, that one's view of Christ cannot be separated from one's view of the Trinity. Deny the Trinity, and you will lose the Biblical Christ; affirm the Christ of Scripture, the Christ who was sent by the Father and who sent the Holy Spirit, and you will find that your God is the Trinity. It is, in fact, the doctrine of the Trinity that is the distinctive feature of the Christian revelation of the nature of the true God. As Calvin expressed it: "For He so proclaims Himself the sole God as to offer Himself to be contemplated clearly in three persons. Unless we grasp these, only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God." (38) Only the Christian God is triune, and consequently, to deny the Trinity is to say that, historically, Judaism and Islam have been right about the being of God, while Christianity has been wrong. Oneness writers have said as much. (39) Therefore, while there may be individual Oneness believers who are saved [Editor's Note: If, like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, a Oneness believer does not have faith in the Biblical Jesus, then how can it be considered possible that such a person is saved?], the Christian community has no choice but to regard the Oneness movement as a whole as having departed from the Christian faith.

We must conclude, then, that the Oneness teaching is a heresy, that it denies a fundamental, basic belief of biblical Christianity, and that those churches and denominations which teach this heresy are actually pseudo-Christian sects. In popular Evangelical terminology, such a heretical sect is known as a "cult," a term which simply means that the group's beliefs are in some important respect non-Christian.

In this sense, we regretfully conclude that the Oneness churches are indeed cults, and we urge Christians to reach out to Oneness believers in love and share with them the triune God revealed in the Scriptures.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Pel - I need to respectfully ask you something, because I want to understand.

Would you say that there is no distinction between standard Oneness doctrine on the Godhead, and standard Trinitarian doctrine on the Godhead?

I don't think Trinitarians view it that way

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/optrin.html

No, I would not say that, especially of today. However, the state of affairs in the Second and Third Centuries was quite a bit different. At times, it seemed that most of the arguments centered around "Dispensational Modalism" and "Simultaneous Modalism."

"Dispensational Modalism" (or "Sequential Modalism") is the idea that Father, Son and Holy Ghost were manifestations of the one God that appeared at different times in history. This implied that at some point God "stopped being the Father" and "became the Holy Ghost" and etc.

Sabellius (an ancient Modalist "heretic") is said to have argued that God did not ever stop being "Father" and etc. His theological adversary, Tertullian, actually praised Sabellius for this. It is from the writings of Tertullian that we get Sabellius' famous analogy of God being likened to the sun. I've discussed this recently in another thread, so I don't want to bore you be repeating it over and over. But I do find it significant.

The guy who coined the phrase "Trinity" (trinitas) in the first place (Tertullian) was in fact more of a Modalist than even many later Trinitarians have believed. At that time, it probably was just a matter of "semantics."

Then, with the barbarian invasions and the fall of Rome, the writings of Tertullian were lost in the West for almost 1,000 years. During this time the Latin language changed and developed - just like all languages do over time. Tertullian's phrase "persona" was adopted to mean more than a "theater mask" or role. It took on the idea of "hypostasis" - the underlying reality of what makes a person or being what they are. Thus, the "Trinity" in the minds of many became "Three Beings Who are All God."

Yet, the ancient creeds and other writings refute this interpretation. I'm not advocating a "modern Trinitarian" view be adopted. I am saying that the ancient beliefs that "modern Trinitarians" claim as their own were really more "Modalist" than they realize.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Pel - I need to respectfully ask you something, because I want to understand.

Would you say that there is no distinction between standard Oneness doctrine on the Godhead, and standard Trinitarian doctrine on the Godhead?

I don't think Trinitarians view it that way

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/optrin.html



HERESY?

We have seen that the Oneness doctrine of God is not faithful to the Biblical revelation of the Father and Son as two persons, and that the Oneness rejection of the Trinity is in error. The question now must be asked how serious an error this is, since theological errors vary in their harmfulness.

Evangelicals commonly suppose that a professed Christian movement may be judged orthodox or heretical simply on the basis of whether or not it affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. Consequently, some Christians have concluded that the Oneness doctrine, despite its denial of the Trinity, is essentially Christian.

This is far too simplistic, however. While it is true that adherence to the two natures of Christ is critical to orthodoxy, and while most pseudo-Christian sects do deny that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, simply affirming the two natures is not enough. Indeed, it is possible to call Jesus "God" and still have "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4), if in calling Him "God" one means something significantly different from what the Bible means.

Such is the case with the Oneness understanding of the deity of Christ. When Oneness believers say that Jesus is God, what they mean is that He is the Father. That is not what the Bible means, as we have seen. Rather, when the Bible says that Jesus is "God," it means that He exists eternally as a divine person in relationship with the Father; or, to use the Church's theological shorthand, it means that He is the second person of the triune God.

The apostle John warns us, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Oneness Pentecostals will not admit to denying the Son, of course; but that should come as no surprise. It is doubtful that any heretic, including those about whom John specifically warned, has ever admitted to denying the Son. Instead, heretics of all kinds have simply redefined the meaning of the term "Son" (and along with it the meaning of "Father"). Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses define "Son" as "direct creation," while the Mormons claim that Jesus is the "Son" of God by virtue of having been begotten through physical union between God and Mary. The Oneness redefinition of "Son" as the human nature of Jesus (and "Father" as His divine nature) may be less offensive than the Mormon version, and less obvious than that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is a redefinition nonetheless. The fact is that the Son and the Father are two persons, co-existing eternally in relationship with one another. To deny this fact is to deny the biblical Son, and thus to have a false view of Jesus.

It turns out, then, that one's view of Christ cannot be separated from one's view of the Trinity. Deny the Trinity, and you will lose the Biblical Christ; affirm the Christ of Scripture, the Christ who was sent by the Father and who sent the Holy Spirit, and you will find that your God is the Trinity. It is, in fact, the doctrine of the Trinity that is the distinctive feature of the Christian revelation of the nature of the true God. As Calvin expressed it: "For He so proclaims Himself the sole God as to offer Himself to be contemplated clearly in three persons. Unless we grasp these, only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God." (38) Only the Christian God is triune, and consequently, to deny the Trinity is to say that, historically, Judaism and Islam have been right about the being of God, while Christianity has been wrong. Oneness writers have said as much. (39) Therefore, while there may be individual Oneness believers who are saved [Editor's Note: If, like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, a Oneness believer does not have faith in the Biblical Jesus, then how can it be considered possible that such a person is saved?], the Christian community has no choice but to regard the Oneness movement as a whole as having departed from the Christian faith.

We must conclude, then, that the Oneness teaching is a heresy, that it denies a fundamental, basic belief of biblical Christianity, and that those churches and denominations which teach this heresy are actually pseudo-Christian sects. In popular Evangelical terminology, such a heretical sect is known as a "cult," a term which simply means that the group's beliefs are in some important respect non-Christian.

In this sense, we regretfully conclude that the Oneness churches are indeed cults, and we urge Christians to reach out to Oneness believers in love and share with them the triune God revealed in the Scriptures.

There you have it.

[Steve Epley]

All Trinitarians are lost. Sad but true.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

All Trinitarians are lost. Sad but true.

According to you, NO ONE was saved for almost 1800 years out of the 2000 year Church Age. You not only gleefully "send people to hell," you boast that the "Gates of Hell" can prevail against the Church.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

According to you, NO ONE was saved for almost 1800 years out of the 2000 year Church Age. You not only gleefully "send people to hell," you boast that the "Gates of Hell" can prevail against the Church.

On this you are wrong I have never gleefully sent folks to hell. I am happy I know the one and only saving message and have obeyed it and preach it, but I am sadden for those who are decieved and heading for judgment unprepared.

[Michael The Disciple]

Trinitarianism is heresy. They dont confess the true doctrine of Christ. Isaiah taught that the Messiah would be BOTH the Father and the Son.

9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Christ is not JUST the Son. He is also the Eternal Father.

[Aquila]

I believe the Apostolic movement would be of greater enfluence globally among all Christians if Apostolics saw themselves as a Revival/Restoration movement... instead of seeing themselves as the only true religion condemning all others... including nearly 2000 years of Christians and the very men who gave their lives to translate and propogate the very Bible we use.