It does not say nameS because this might imply polytheism. It is singular showing that the Father/Son/Spirit are one God (but not one 'person').
God is more like one army or cluster of grapes than one pencil.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
It does not say nameS because this might imply polytheism. It is singular showing that the Father/Son/Spirit are one God (but not one 'person').
God is more like one army or cluster of grapes than one pencil.
OneGodInChrist
New member
The Bible says that Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost Math 1:18
So who is the Father of Jesus then? The Father or the Holy Ghost?
I agree that the Father sent the Holy Ghost and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, because I believe that the Holy Ghost and the Father are one and the same.
God the Father sent His Spirit (the Holy Spirit) to overshadow Mary and cause her to be pregnant.
David prayed in Psalm 51:11 to God (and David had no concept of a Trinity) and said "Take not the Holy Spirit from me." Was David saying "Take not the third person of the Trinity from me?" No, He was asking God (the Father) not to take HIS Spirit from him.
When the Bible talks about the Father, it's talking about the invisible Spirit that is omnipresent. When it refers to the Holy Ghost it's referring to that same Spirit in action, not another person. It's referring to the Spirit of God moving on, through, or with people.
When the Bible says that Mary was found with cild of the Holy Ghost, that makes the Holy Ghost the Father. God the Father is a Spirit. God the Father is a HOLY SPIRIT. Hence, the Holy Spirit.I can't explain it any easier than that.
Apple7
New member
That the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit is amply demonstrated in Jesus’ own baptism. (Mat 3.16 – 17; Mark 1.10; Luke 3.22; John 1:32 – 33)
In each Gospel account, we are told that two are manifested in the flesh:
1) God the Son…Jesus
2) God the Spirit…Dove
But…where is God the Father? We never see God the Father, we only hear His voice. In fact, nowhere in scripture does it ever state that the Father ever manifested flesh. Not once!
See the distinction which scripture makes between the three?
The Son cannot possibly be the Father…however; they are each the one God.
Jn. 4:24 is a metaphysical statement about God's being (ontology). God is immaterial, uncreated, eternal spirit, not matter, not rock, not human, not angel, not tree, not dog. Archangel Michael is also spirit and man has/is a spirit. Satan is spirit, not material.
This should not be confused with the person of the Holy Spirit who is also spirit. Jn. 14-16 calls Him another Comforter of the same kind, sent from the Father/Son. Jesus was sent by the Father, but is not the Father. Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. We see Father, Son, Spirit together at the baptism of Christ. Modalism makes this a charade/illusion.
The Father and Son had an eternal relationship. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, not his biological father. The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in Mary. This was His role. You are thinking of the Father/Spirit in procreative, biological terms? The Father and Word have an eternal relationship and the Spirit is involved with the virgin conception. They have absolute oneness/unity of spirit nature, but they still are distinct in another sense. It is redundant to talk about God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ. Some oneness try to make this say (kai conjunction) even the Lord Jesus. This is strained and nonsensical and does not work in every verse.
Give it up.
OneGodInChrist
New member
So when you received the Spirit, you believe you have three persons in you? As a fellow Pentecostal pastor, I'm sure you've used the phrase "I feel the Holy Ghost here tonight," or "I feel Jesus." Do you think they're interchangable terms? I absolutely do.
Even Trinitarians songs are mostly all about Jesus, and they seem to leave the other two out through many of them. The truth is thst their singing and preaching is anointed, and therefore very Christocentric. I believe that their anointing is trying to show them something..that when they lift up the name of Jesus, they ARE exalting all of God.
We agree that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit's role is to point to Jesus. Jesus also glorifies His Father and lifts Him up. Since all 3 are God, it is right to worship each or the triune God. In Rev. 4-5, the Father and Lamb are worshipped equally. It is all redundant if it is just 'Jesus only'. The Spirit is the servant of the Godhead. The normative pattern is to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. We can also ask Jesus anything in His name since He is also God.
The triune God is absolutely unified, so things about the Son apply to the Father, etc. However, there is also functional subordination with the Son turning all things to the Father that He may be all in all. If God is just Jesus, representing Father/Son/Spirit as personally distinct with clear language is a lie.
OneGodInChrist
New member
Ok, here's my last shot for the evening..I promise
Explain to me why no one was baptized in the book of Acts or the first 150 years of Church history any other way thsn in the name of Jesus.. Your answer about it not being a formula is not Scriptural and also doesn't agree with history.
When we cast out devils, are we not supose to say, "In the name of Jesus?
When we lay hands on the sick, do we not say "In the name of Jesus?"
You used the arguement of it not being a formula because it didn't agree with your doctrine, thats it. You would have used the same arguement I did and claimed thst it WAS formulative if the book of Acts had've taught the Trinitarian formula. No? Be honest with me, yourself, and God before you answer.
I'm not saying that I can answer ALL things about how God is one anymore than you can about the Trinity. I do however believe it's right. 1Tim.3:16 says "Great is the mystery of Godliness. God was manifest in the flesh. " The mystery however is HOW God became flesh (the "mechsnics") of it. There is no mystery however, to WHO He is.
Jesus said "No man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and to WHOM THE SON WILL REVEAL HIM.
It's a revelation regardless of who's right.
You assume it was a formula, but this is not explicit in Scripture. We do not know exactly what was said and we can find e.g. of trinitarian and Jesus name in early church history. The demonized girl also talked about the name of Jesus (Acts) and Jesus said some using His name do not know Him. It is not a magic thing but recognizes/represents the person and authority (you need to understand name in first century Mid-East culture, not our own modern, Western one).
We have no problem doing things in the name of Jesus, including baptism. It is simply wrong to make baptism and/or a specific wording (which Oneness groups do not even agree on) to be a necessary condition for eternal life (cf. must be Catholic, take Mass, etc. to be saved, baptized as infant, etc.). This would contradict major verses and principles vs isolated proof texts out of context.
We have no problem doing things in the name of Jesus, including baptism. It is simply wrong to make baptism and/or a specific wording (which Oneness groups do not even agree on) to be a necessary condition for eternal life (cf. must be Catholic, take Mass, etc. to be saved, baptized as infant, etc.). This would contradict major verses and principles vs isolated proof texts out of context.
OneGodInChrist
New member
I assume it's a formula because that's what makes sense. You assume it's not because it would contradict your doctrine. The reason I can't accept your concept godrulz, is simply because I would have to ignore way too many Scriptures.
Acts 2:38 says that baptism remits sins very clearly. Your grammer arguement for it referring remission of sins to repentance is rediculous. A grade five teacher would tell you that. But again, you're choosing to believe it because of your preconceived idea that baptism's not for the remission of sins.
I have a choice to believe that being "born of water and of the Spirit" is either being baptized in water and baptized in the Spirit, or I can believe the sad attempt to explain it away by saying that being "born of water" is when we're born in our mother's womb. Common sense makes me choose the former.
I'm not going to take thousands of Scriptures in the Old Testament that refer to God as "Him, He, His, I, etc.' etc., and cling to a few very vague Scripture that no one knows for sure their meaning such as "Let us," or the plural meaning of Elohim. The Hebrew writers, who had a completely singular view of God chose the word Elohim, that I DO know.
I also know that the Scripture teach that "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." and that God said in the "Beside me there is none else." I teach home Bible studies on a regular basis and have never had a hard time explaining the Oneness concept to them. Some of them get it without me even explaining it as soon as they see that the Scriptures teach the Jesus is God. Why? Because they don't have a preconceived idea of God being a Trinity. To them, the fact that Jesus prayed, etc. isn't confusing because they understand that He was FULLY a man with His own human spirit and will. If He didn't have these things, He wouldn't have been a man.
You also want me to throw out Mar. 16:16 that says, "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved, along with a lot of other Scriptures that teach that baptism is a part of salvation. I don't believe that "baptismal regeneration" such as Catholicism teaches saves us, but I DO believe that baptism is PART of Being born again. I see godrulz, that all over your posts your breaking one of the first laws of hermrneutics without even relizing it - you're using one method one place, and the opposite the next.
Ex. You say that baptism isn't a part of salvation because there are places where only repentance is mention, and not baptism. Ok, yes I agree, there are.
But there are also places people received the baptism of tge Holy Ghost where it's not recorded or mentiined that they spoke in tongues. Does that mean that they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost WITHOUT speaking in tongues? I think we would both agree that, No, it doesn't. It just means that it wasn't recorded.
We have to use proper hermeneutics everywhere, and can't use one one place, and one another in order to fit our own beleifs.
The Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is one in essence, and three in person, and that only one person in the Godhead became flesh, and that only the third person baptizes our Spirit.
The Oneness doctrine teaches that God became flesh, period. The God of the OT Father) became flesh in the NT (Son), lived, died, rose again, and sent His resurrected Spirit back to live in the hearts of believers as the Holy Ghost. It's not confusing at all, a child could (and they do) understand it. The Trinity hiwever is confusing, contradictory of itself, and not at all Scriptural without adding to the text and misinterpretting them.
Acts 2:38 says that baptism remits sins very clearly. Your grammer arguement for it referring remission of sins to repentance is rediculous. A grade five teacher would tell you that. But again, you're choosing to believe it because of your preconceived idea that baptism's not for the remission of sins.
I have a choice to believe that being "born of water and of the Spirit" is either being baptized in water and baptized in the Spirit, or I can believe the sad attempt to explain it away by saying that being "born of water" is when we're born in our mother's womb. Common sense makes me choose the former.
I'm not going to take thousands of Scriptures in the Old Testament that refer to God as "Him, He, His, I, etc.' etc., and cling to a few very vague Scripture that no one knows for sure their meaning such as "Let us," or the plural meaning of Elohim. The Hebrew writers, who had a completely singular view of God chose the word Elohim, that I DO know.
I also know that the Scripture teach that "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." and that God said in the "Beside me there is none else." I teach home Bible studies on a regular basis and have never had a hard time explaining the Oneness concept to them. Some of them get it without me even explaining it as soon as they see that the Scriptures teach the Jesus is God. Why? Because they don't have a preconceived idea of God being a Trinity. To them, the fact that Jesus prayed, etc. isn't confusing because they understand that He was FULLY a man with His own human spirit and will. If He didn't have these things, He wouldn't have been a man.
You also want me to throw out Mar. 16:16 that says, "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved, along with a lot of other Scriptures that teach that baptism is a part of salvation. I don't believe that "baptismal regeneration" such as Catholicism teaches saves us, but I DO believe that baptism is PART of Being born again. I see godrulz, that all over your posts your breaking one of the first laws of hermrneutics without even relizing it - you're using one method one place, and the opposite the next.
Ex. You say that baptism isn't a part of salvation because there are places where only repentance is mention, and not baptism. Ok, yes I agree, there are.
But there are also places people received the baptism of tge Holy Ghost where it's not recorded or mentiined that they spoke in tongues. Does that mean that they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost WITHOUT speaking in tongues? I think we would both agree that, No, it doesn't. It just means that it wasn't recorded.
We have to use proper hermeneutics everywhere, and can't use one one place, and one another in order to fit our own beleifs.
The Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is one in essence, and three in person, and that only one person in the Godhead became flesh, and that only the third person baptizes our Spirit.
The Oneness doctrine teaches that God became flesh, period. The God of the OT Father) became flesh in the NT (Son), lived, died, rose again, and sent His resurrected Spirit back to live in the hearts of believers as the Holy Ghost. It's not confusing at all, a child could (and they do) understand it. The Trinity hiwever is confusing, contradictory of itself, and not at all Scriptural without adding to the text and misinterpretting them.
OneGodInChrist
New member
Just correcting a double post..did't know how to delete
Wile E. Coyote
New member
Then you subscribe to the Modalist error.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
The Trinity as a formal "doctrine" did not exist. However, many ancient peoples had a concept of a triune God. Why did many different peoples have a concept of a triune God? Could it be that nature reveals that God is a triune being?
God was NEVER alone.
This is not totally correct. The Trinitarian "concept" was widespread but was not fully grasped. We have artifacts from several different cultures which show that men believed in a triune God of some kind. Many non-trinitarians have acknowledged this but have said that those cultures were pagan. But those cultures had no special revelation from God. No special revelation means that any view they had of the Creator prior to the giving of that special revelation would NOT have been "pagan."
It was Trinitarianism as a doctrine that was not widespread.
Matthew 28:19 is NOT about water baptism. Jesus was speaking about baptism in the classical sense. Baptism in the classical sense was about changing one's behavior. This was done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Water baptism which was totally unrelated was performed in the name of Jesus only.
You must demonstrate that baptism in the tri-une name is about water before you can prove that the Apostle's having performed water baptism in the name of Jesus only infers your Oneness doctrine.
And you are more qualified?
Ad hominen....
OneGodInChrist
New member
I don't consider myself a Modalist..I'm a Oneness Pentecostal..there's a difference. Modalism gives a much more vague description of the Godhead, while Oneness believers are very definitive and precise in where they stand.
Comparing the Oneness and Modalism is kind of like comparing traditional, Orthodox Trinitarianism to radical Trinitarianism that almost pushes the line of Tritheism, which many Oneness people wrongfully accuse Orthodox Trinitarians of. I don't consider traditional Trinitarianism as being Tritheistic at all..if I do I would be labeling them with people who falsely represent Trinitarianism, such as thos who teach that all three persons of the Godhead have their own body, soul, and Spirit. Modelism is a very broad term that leaves room for error. However, Oneness is a very definitive term that leaves no question of our stance.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
If it walks and quacks like a duck....
http://www.theopedia.com/Modalism
You redefine Modalism and then say you are not a Modalist.
Peace
Redeemed-777
New member
Okay, now we're gettin' somewhere.
But, the Word (the Logos) became flesh (Jesus Christ).
So, you're sayin' the Logos is the Father God of the OT.
Yes, I'm totally on board with 3 Manifestations.
But, we're still talkin' 3 ... Persons or Manifestations ... just words.
OneGodInChrist
New member
You just proved my point. The article states that Oneness Pentecostals adhere to the Modalist view that the Father and Son cannot co-exist. That's rediculous as I'm sure you'd agree. Many Modalist do hold to that assumption. Oneness Pentecostals however do not. I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can and DO co-exist as seperate manifestations of God, not persons.
In order to understand my stance, you need to study Oneness Pentecostalism from OUR perspective as I do the Trinitarian view from yours. I don't classify all Trinitarianism into one, because doing so I'd be doing you a misservice in pushing you into a category with those who believe it in the non Orthodox views.
All I'm saying is that all Modelists don't view the Godhead in the same light. All mainstream Oneness Pentecostals however, do.
OneGodInChrist
New member
Agreed..as you always take time to express your view of the Trinity, not to be confused with other views that confuse or misrepresent it.
Wile E. Coyote
New member
You failed to comprehend the article. It says that your view is a "FORM" of the modalist error.
If it walks and quacks like a duck it's a duck no matter its color. Just be up front about it and say, "I subscribe to a form of the modalist error."