ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I see your point and I see you ducking mine. What of the children?

I'm not ducking. I don't know what your point is other than to insist the lowest common denominator is the litmus test for salvation. The less you know the "more" saved you are.

The Gospel is ontological and epistemological. One's ontology can be, and is, changed by God without extensive initial awareness beyond certain basics. But no one should stay at that point and excuse away their false simplicity and ignorance.

The quality of faith is like that of a child. Pure and wholly persuaded, without fear or doubting. A total yieldedness of oneself, which is ontological. That inner ontology WILL include and progress to inward epistemology, which will always include outward economy of action and establishment of methodologies based on the entirety of it all.

Does that address what you're referring to? If not, please elaborate.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Stuff it in your ear.. . blow hard. That should bring you relief.

For the entire history of the Christian faith since the earliest apologetics, your position (which is the false Christology of the New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism) has always been heretical and anathema. Always. Without exception or interruption. This isn't a new thing. There's nothing new under the sun.

 

[Cross Reference]

For the entire history of the Christian faith since the earliest apologetics, your position (which is the false Christology of the New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism) has always been heretical and anathema. Always. Without exception or interruption. This isn't a new thing. There's nothing new under the sun.

Stuff it in a little further and try again.

 

[Danoh]

Stuff it in a little further and try again.

I see he is still toot'n his high faloot'n :chuckle:

 

[Cross Reference]

Absolutely, that is what dialogue is about and why I'd entertain heterodox or heresy for more than one post.
I asked you in what sense you are triune.
You could simply label yourself Charismatic Kenotic and dialogue would have been kept to a minimum.

This is part of the Kenosis problem and why it is considered heresy (both of these are fairly short and quick reads).


When John knew isn't as important as when It was stated in the time-line. John 1:1 says in the beginning. The word is ἀρχῇ which can be translated 'in the past' or 'before a certain event (like creation).' It is where we get archaic and archeology ("very long time ago").
The conveyance is that "the Word was with God AND was God." I realize your kenosis idea has Jesus Christ 'losing' His deity at Creation, but an emptying doesn't mean 'ceased having/being." Even your exception at the transfiguration indicates He always had access to His attributes. As to man and being tempted? He was fully man. The Kenotic idea has Jesus Christ the Lord as 50% man an 50% God thus not even fully man by doctrinal portrayal. He laid aside His 'god-half' in Kenotic portrayal. The Lord Jesus Christ had to remain God, even to be fully man, else we are talking about halves. This is largely why the Kenosis theology approaches heterodoxy and heresy, specifically because it does not embrace the creed nor scripture that portrays Him 100%/100%. Remember, I too had to be corrected, I was heterodox at the time of correction, so I somewhat understand where you are coming from. A few scriptural references I was neglecting had me realizing "emptying" in Philippians 2 couldn't mean His divinity. God can't ever stop being God. It doesn't even make sense when you think about it. Simply ask: "Can God stop being God?" What necessarily must the answer be?


I gotcha now. I just didn't know who you were until this post. I think "My theology is Charismatic Kenotic" would have expedited. To be sure, is this a fair assessment of your theology?


Right. We disagree. Is it within Triune discussion? I think I want it to be here, simply because PPS is right, even among those who would be orthodox, such as your position that you are a Trinitarian, it is important to take care of these matters 'in-house' as it were, and so, though I think what we are entertaining is outside of the triune view, at least at the extreme, it yet falls within the claim to be triune. I think, however, there is only so far we can go with it in thread: Both to identify the problem and show as clearly as we can, where we depart from one another on our views (a little bit of a change of mind in that I think we should discuss it a bit further for clarity's sake and because it explains itself as Trinitarian).


Well, this is why I like labels, even though a lot of people don't. If someone knows at least close to what I believe, they can more easily pick out the differences from there. I 'think' I'm seeing where you are coming from at this point.

Just a sec...

The triune view embraces the difference between Father and Son, rather than a difference between God and God because there is only one God. I want to go back to Philippians 2:7 to answer your question. He did this to Himself, He took on the nature, He humbled Himself.
They were all His own actions that He did to Himself. We have a LOT of equivocation in scripture between Spirit Father and Son because they are all the same being and it is usually a misunderstanding of tritheism that leads to a problematic logic and understanding. I agree with PPS on that assessment. Hope some of this helps, even if we remain in disagreement. -Lon

Empty means empty as He "emptied Himself", Php 2:7 KJV. There is no "kenosis" in that declaration, no 50/50 man-God; no compromise. Why not recognize that, admit it and begin to build an honest assessment of His life?

Nothing in what I have attempted to convey to you even hints of "Kenosis". Why not try reading for comprehension to "know" instead of for trying to label and accuse to protect your religious prejudice?

They could not be the same being for Jesus to be wholly son of man to do what only the son of, man flesh and blood could only do.

OMT: Your "Just a sec." is a no proper reply to that passage.

 

[Lon]

Empty means empty as He "emptied Himself", Php 2:7 KJV. There is no "kenosis" in that declaration, no 50/50 man-God; no compromise. Nothing in what I have attempted to convey to you even hints of "Kenosis". Why not try reading for comprehension to know instead of for trying to label and accuse to protect your religious prejudice?

Did you read the links? Kenosis means 'emptied Himself.' It is Greek for exactly that. Apology on this. I hadn't posted the Greek, but the alliteration, which is basically your theological position (again, the links) as I, PPS, and likely others understand it. So, it wasn't intentional that I didn't explain it, although the links did. -Lon

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Stuff it in a little further and try again.

I don't need to "try", whether it's again or anew.

It's you who is throwing nearly two millennia of orthodoxy under the bus for your own autonomous heresy inherited from the schismatic anti-christ Third Wave Charimatic movements that have done the same.

It's so subtle, you can't know it's not the truth. And here you are beating the air with your anti-Christian subtleties.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Empty means empty as He "emptied Himself", Php 2:7 KJV. There is no "kenosis" in that declaration, no 50/50 man-God; no compromise. Why not recognize that, admit it and begin to build an honest assessment of His life?

Nothing in what I have attempted to convey to you even hints of "Kenosis". Why not try reading for comprehension to "know" instead of for trying to label and accuse to protect your religious prejudice?

They could not be the same being for Jesus to be wholly son of man to do what only the son of, man flesh and blood could only do.

OMT: Your "Just a sec." is a no proper reply to that passage.

You have no idea whatsoever how great a display of utter ignorance this is. You just don't and can't.

The Greek term in that verse is kenoo (kee-nah'-oh), and it has an explicit meaning that requires more than one or two English words to begin to understand.

You're in such an elementary and erroneous position, there's almost no hope of you ever looking past your own conceptual replacements that you share with the burgeoning growth of other nominal and beligerent NAR indoctrinates because it all sounds so "right" to your fleshy ears and uncircumcised hearts.

It's a Trojan-horsed load of subtle heresy pushed inside the gates of authentic Christianity; and you and millions of others are not only none the wiser, but adamantly prefer it to the truth to the extent it's a hill you'd die on (and in vain).

This is a huge part of the apostasy of this era in the fallen earth ages. But you'd rather crucify me than ever challenge or renounce that which has sculpted your heart according to error and fallacy just incrementally outside the Faith.

I'm grieved and sad, not contending or competing for a viewpoint. You think you're doing God a service, and you'd string me up for daring to correct your false autonomous pseudo-mysticism.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Empty means empty as He "emptied Himself", Php 2:7 KJV. There is no "kenosis" in that declaration, no 50/50 man-God; no compromise. Why not recognize that, admit it and begin to build an honest assessment of His life?

Nothing in what I have attempted to convey to you even hints of "Kenosis". Why not try reading for comprehension to "know" instead of for trying to label and accuse to protect your religious prejudice?

They could not be the same being for Jesus to be wholly son of man to do what only the son of, man flesh and blood could only do.

OMT: Your "Just a sec." is a no proper reply to that passage.

The bolded is completely and utterly ANTI-Christian. This heresy has its roots in the 19th century, tainted with Theosophical and Humanist influences by German pseudo-theologians attempting to deal with Liberalism that emerged from the onslaught of the post-Rennaisance Enlightenment and Modernist hyper-anthropocentric thought.

Paired with Barthian Unlimited Atonement, these have become the pillars of the blight on the faith that is the New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism that have also usurped any form of valid Pentecostalism.

It's schism beyond heresy, which is clearly beyond heterodox. It's occultism permeating movements purporting to be Christian that are merely the hybridization and syncretization of every form of false mysticism that ever emerged from the ancient Mesopotamian basin, and more.

It's a false Christ.

 

[Cross Reference]

For Lon to consider:

The triune view embraces the difference between Father and Son, rather than a difference between God and God because there is only one God. I want to go back to Philippians 2:7 to answer your question. He did this to Himself, He took on the nature, He humbled Himself.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: . . ." Genesis 1:26 (KJV)

We can understand that the "we" in this account whose image the Word was putting forth as the pattern for man, was of Himself, the Image Moses saw in Exo 33: 20-22 KJV, and God Who is Spirit, these 2 being in complete union as the Great "I AM" Who "I AM", meaning '"I AM" whatever I need to be in bringing to a conclusion that which I purpose in/of Myself. To me, it explains the origin of the Word's appearance along with the various accounts that speak of an appearance of an Angel or the Angel of the Lord mentioned in the scriptures.

They were all of His own actions that He did to Himself. We have a LOT of equivocation in scripture between Spirit Father and Son because they are all the same being and it is usually a misunderstanding of tritheism that leads to a problematic logic and understanding. I agree with PPS on that assessment. Hope some of this helps, even if we remain in disagreement. -Lon

Lon, "A child is born. A son is given". Unfortunately, many children never become sons.

 

[Cross Reference]

The bolded is completely and utterly ANTI-Christian. This heresy has its roots in the 19th century, tainted with Theosophical and Humanist influences by German pseudo-theologians attempting to deal with Liberalism that emerged from the onslaught of the post-Rennaisance Enlightenment and Modernist hyper-anthropocentric thought.

Paired with Barthian Unlimited Atonement, these have become the pillars of the blight on the faith that is the New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism that have also usurped any form of valid Pentecostalism.

It's schism beyond heresy, which is clearly beyond heterodox. It's occultism permeating movements purporting to be Christian that are merely the hybridization and syncretization of every form of false mysticism that ever emerged from the ancient Mesopotamian basin, and more.

It's a false Christ.

I take it you are of Calvin?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I take it you are of Calvin?

No, I am not a Calvinist. What does that directly have to do with Christology anyway?

Look... This isn't personal. Nobody's attacking you. And I well understand you think you're taking what you believe is a stand for the authentic humanity of Christ during the Incarnation.

But your position is 19th-century heresy that is NOT the historical Christian faith of the foregoing two millennia. It's an innovation by heretical scholars based on an influential Theosophist and Humanistic Liberalism that has been adopted by several large groups that didn't draw upon theologians and linguists and historians; instead preferring their own alleged encounters and experiences to scripture and its appropriate transaltion.

This goes layers and layers deeper than you can imagine. It is literally the spirit of anti-christ perverting and diluting the inspired Word over time and subtly installing this foundational deception in modern groups that claim to be part of the Church.

I have many dear friends and a few family members that have embraced this. I spent almost three years inside a fellowship that taught this (and much more subtle heresy), discovering every doctrinal detail that coallesces for this heinous deception that is tainting the Faith to so many growing millions as the great apostasy of this age.

Those who have been brought out of all of it now clearly see, but it has been a long and difficult trek with them for their deliverance from the web of lies; because they had swallowed it all without thinking anything of it. It's so sublte when you're in it.

Now every one of them knows exactly how cultic and OCcultic it is. Now they despise Hegelian Kenoticism above nearly all things, for it was what dragged them into false belief.

Please don't continue down that path. I beseech you. Please stop and hear.

 

[Cross Reference]

No, I am not a Calvinist. What does that directly have to do with Christology anyway?

Look... This isn't personal. Nobody's attacking you. And I well understand you think you're taking what you believe is a stand for the authentic humanity of Christ during the Incarnation.

But your position is 19th-century heresy that is NOT the historical Christian faith of the foregoing two millennia. It's an innovation by heretical scholars based on an influential Theosophist and Humanistic Liberalism that has been adopted by several large groups that didn't draw upon theologians and linguists and historians; instead preferring their own alleged encounters and experiences to scripture and its appropriate transaltion.

This goes layers and layers deeper than you can imagine. It is literally the spirit of anti-christ perverting and diluting the inspired Word over time and subtly installing this foundational deception in modern groups that claim to be part of the Church.

I have many dear friends and a few family members that have embraced this. I spent almost three years inside a fellowship that taught this (and much more subtle heresy), discovering every doctrinal detail that coallesces for this heinous deception that is tainting the Faith to so many growing millions as the great apostasy of this age.

Those who have been brought out of all of it now clearly see, but it has been a long and difficult trek with them for their deliverance from the web of lies; because they had swallowed it all without thinking anything of it. It's so sublte when you're in it.

Now every one of them knows exactly how cultic and OCcultic it is. Now they despise Hegelian Kenoticism above nearly all things, for it was what dragged them into false belief.

Please don't continue down that path. I beseech you. Please stop and hear.

I don't know how you can acheive it but, know that you are mistaken.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I don't know how you can acheive it but, know that you are mistaken.

No. Extreme Kenoticism has been heresy and anathema for many centuries. It's also the most extreme form of Nestorianism, which has also been heresy and anathema for many centuries. And Kenoticism is also a form of Semi-Arianism or Semi-Unitarianism, while also resembling Adoptionism. All heresy and anathema for many centuries.

This is linguistic, historical, theological, and philological fact. This is not my individual opinion, or anyone else's. Kenoo does not and cannot mean what extreme Kenoticists employ it to mean. It's one word, the erroneous meaning for which has tainted the faith on a very large scale.

I am not mistaken. I've seen the damage to hearts and minds and relationships first hand. I'm not condescending to you or anyone. I am almost weeping as I type this. I've watched people I love worshipping and serving another Jesus and another spirit of another God just because they don't know any better. Their alleged experiences and encounters trump all truth and most of them will not hear.

I led one Pastor almost completely out of the mess. He admitted it was a cult, but he was only part of a large staff and some of them were relatives and close friends. He ultimately went back to it. It was his livelihood and he couldn't stand being separated from family and friends by doctrine, even if it was false doctrine. He can't even look me in the eyes now. He knows he willfully walked away from truth to keep the lies.

 

[Lon]

For Lon to consider:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: . . ." Genesis 1:26 (KJV)

We can understand that the "we" in this account whose image the Word was putting forth as the pattern for man, was of Himself, the Image Moses saw in Exo 33: 20-22 KJV, and God Who is Spirit, these 2 being in complete union as the Great "I AM" Who "I AM", meaning '"I AM" whatever I need to be in bringing to a conclusion that which I purpose in/of Myself. To me, it explains the origin of the Word's appearance along with the various accounts that speak of an appearance of an Angel or the Angel of the Lord mentioned in the scriptures.

As this is the Triune thread, I'm not sure if you are supporting the thread, talking about us as 'gods' or else. Can you be more pedantic?

Lon, "A child is born. A son is given". Unfortunately, many children never become sons.

Is your view of the trinity inclusive of us as well? Are we as children of God, part of the triune God as you are explaining it? Is the Lord Jesus Christ no more God than we are? Is He God very God and we creations, but adopted (as creations) sons and daughters?

I'm wondering why you aren't being as clear. I assure you it is NOT on my side of the screen. Nobody reading you here will know what you are talking about. I suspect, like me, you are a global thinker and must learn to express yourself more concrete and sequentially. Global thinkers generally think well, but we don't convey as clearly as we think we do. I have to work at doing the pedantic details because details, for me, are a given and being that pedantic seems anti-intellectual. Whatever the case may be, you aren't being as clear as is needed here. You don't have to take me on your whole journey. SIt and cogitate over your response and summarize and get to the point. In homiletics class (preaching) one method for Global thinkers is 1) Tell audience what you intend to tell them by way of introduction. "tell them what you are going to tell them." 2) Tell them now what you said you were going to expound and stay as close to topic as possible "Tell them." 3) In summary, go over briefly what you just said by way of reminder "Tell them what you told them."


It works especially well for people like you and I to assist in ensuring conveyance. -Lon

Tell me what you are going to say, say it, and remind me what you said.

 

[Cross Reference]

As this is the Triune thread, I'm not sure if you are supporting the thread, talking about us as 'gods' or else. Can you be more pedantic?


Is your view of the trinity inclusive of us as well? Are we as children of God, part of the triune God as you are explaining it? Is the Lord Jesus Christ no more God than we are? Is He God very God and we creations, but adopted (as creations) sons and daughters?

I'm wondering why you aren't being as clear. I assure you it is NOT on my side of the screen. Nobody reading you here will know what you are talking about. I suspect, like me, you are a global thinker and must learn to express yourself more concrete and sequentially. Global thinkers generally think well, but we don't convey as clearly as we think we do. I have to work at doing the pedantic details because details, for me, are a given and being that pedantic seems anti-intellectual. Whatever the case may be, you aren't being as clear as is needed here. You don't have to take me on your whole journey. SIt and cogitate over your response and summarize and get to the point. In homiletics class (preaching) one method for Global thinkers is 1) Tell audience what you intend to tell them by way of introduction. "tell them what you are going to tell them." 2) Tell them now what you said you were going to expound and stay as close to topic as possible "Tell them." 3) In summary, go over briefly what you just said by way of reminder "Tell them what you told them."

It works especially well for people like you and I to assist in ensuring conveyance. -Lon

Tell me what you are going to say, say it, and remind me what you said.

I am about through here Lon but, before I sign off with you will you give me your understanding of these passages, some of a few that I have referenced [resourced] in my exchange with you, as to what I believe:

1. God being the Author of creation and Jesus being the Author of our salvation: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings". Hebrews 2:10 (KJV) Don't split hair in this,

2. "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."
Ephesians 1:12 (KJV) In fact, if you don't mind, the whole chapter 1 of Ephesians.

And for you speaking of me believing for alluding to some sort of 'god-ship':

3. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 Andif children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:16-17 (KJV)

And as to pursuing holiness unto the body of Christ which is equality in Jesus per John 17:23 KJV:

4. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." Hebrews 2:11-12 (KJV)

I will not argue with your opinion.

 

[Lon]

I am about through here Lon but, before I sign off with you will you give me your understanding of these passages, some of a few that I have referenced [resourced] in my exchange with you, as to what I believe:

1. God being the Author of creation and Jesus being the Author of our salvation: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings". Hebrews 2:10 (KJV) Don't split hair in this,

I explained, and I thought clearly:

God the Father, Genesis 1:1 Spirit Genesis 1:2 and Son Colossians 1:16-20 are the Author of Creation. God the Father Ephesians 1:3-6, Spirit, Ephesians 1:13-14 and Son Ephesians 1:7-12 are the Author of Salvation.

If you are concerned about the Author's name on particulars, I'd think if you concede the join effort of God: Father,Son, Spirit in all things, if you only want one name on the book (and there is precedence in scripture for some of this), then I believe that is within orthodoxy, at this particular point. If you make a distinction, you are having Jesus not 'the same, yesterday, today, and forever' (eternally unchanging).
No split hairs, God, all of God is involved in creation and salvation. Author's name? Not too problematic. Author only? :nono: God is the only author of creation and only author of salvation. Father, Son, Spirit are all included as author of both by the scriptures given above. So I'd suggest we do see this passage differently between what is implicit (deduced) and explicit (very clear).

2. "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."
Ephesians 1:12 (KJV) In fact, if you don't mind, the whole chapter 1 of Ephesians.

Ephesians 1:2 God our Father, Jesus Christ our Lord = distinction 'tri(more than one)-' of tri-une
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ = distinction 'tri-' of tri-une
Ephesians 1:4 God the Father (but not limited to by necessity here) chose us
Ephesians 1:5 He destined us for adoption (God, Father)
Ephesians 1:7 in "Him" (God, this time Jesus is distinguished while talking about "God")
Ephesians 1:9 He (God, Father) set for in Christ (God)
Ephesians 1:11 God (no distinction)
Ephesians 1:12 His (God) glory
Ephesians 1:13 Believed in Him (God, Jesus, Father) and sealed w/Holy Spirit (God also) United '-une'
Ephesians 1:14 He (Holy Spirit)= distinction 'tri-' of tri-une
Ephesians 1:17 God of our Lord Jesus Christ (who is also God alone)= distinction 'tri-' of tri-une
Ephesians 1:20 He (Father) raised Jesus from the dead (note the verses that also say the Father wasn't acting alone,but all of God is involved) = same '-une' of tri-une
Ephesians 1:22 He (Father, God) put all things under His (the Lord Jesus Christ)feet.
Ephesians 1:23 His body (the Lord Jesus Christ's) the fullness of Him (God, the Lord Jesus Christ (and Holy Spirit) fills everything that exists. '-une'

And for you speaking of me believing for alluding to some sort of 'god-ship':

3. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 Andif children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:16-17 (KJV)

And as to pursuing holiness unto the body of Christ which is equality in Jesus per John 17:23 KJV:

4. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." Hebrews 2:11-12 (KJV)

I believe we are 'created' brothers. Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior is uncreated Only Begotten, of God/God.

I will not argue with your opinion.

Not sure if you are saying this so that I'd give my thoughts here, or that you are trying to slam me for an opinion I gave. Again, you aren't as clear. Being this way myself, and having had to work hard to be understood, I don't mind, but will ask you again to try to be clearer. If people get my doctrine, then I'm explaining myself well. If they don't, then I'm not. What do you mean with 'not argu[ing] with [my] opinion?'

 

[Cross Reference]

Not sure if you are saying this so that I'd give my thoughts here, or that you are trying to slam me for an opinion I gave. Again, you aren't as clear. Being this way myself, and having had to work hard to be understood, I don't mind, but will ask you again to try to be clearer. If people get my doctrine, then I'm explaining myself well. If they don't, then I'm not. What do you mean with 'not argu[ing] with [my] opinion?'

Neither are you and further debating would be fruitless. Bye.

 

[Lon]

Neither are you and further debating would be fruitless. Bye.

I would point back [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION] for closing:

No. Extreme Kenoticism has been heresy and anathema for many centuries. It's also the most extreme form of Nestorianism, which has also been heresy and anathema for many centuries. And Kenoticism is also a form of Semi-Arianism or Semi-Unitarianism, while also resembling Adoptionism. All heresy and anathema for many centuries.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Whether by some degree or gradient of Arianism, Unitarianism, Sabellianism, Binitarianism, Pneumatomachianism, or other full view of Theology Proper; or by some degree or gradient of Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Apollinarianism, Kenoticism, or Docetism as Christology; any and all denials of the authentically innate and intrinsic eternal uncreated uninterrupted continuous ontological divinity of the Eternal Son and His distinction from both the Father and the Holy Spirit are historically schismatic heresy and anathema throughout the entirety of the Christian faith since the earliest apologetics period based on Apostolic precedent.

The 19th-century extreme form of Hegelian Kenoticism that pervades The New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism (and other groups and movements of modern False Continuationism that have supplanted any form of valid Pentecostal Continuationism) is a confluence of several of the above.

It's heresy of the highest order beyond heterodoxy, especially when it is so often combined with a diluted and perverted form of Barthian Universal Atonement.