Oneness doctrine

There is no rank as importance in the Godhead. But there is order.
In the Great Commission, Jesus said: Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the SON and of the Holy Spirit.

In 1John 5:7, we have a definite statement that gives order.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

There is the order plainly stated.
In the trinity the Father is always first; the Son is always second; the Holy Spirit is always third.

When Stephen was being stoned he looked up into heaven and what did he see? He saw Christ, the Son of God, standing on the right hand of God the Father. There is order. God is a God of order.

The Oneness, as Stainedglass agrees with, denies this. He denies that Christ is the second person of the trinity. In fact if pushed he would deny the trinity completely, at least as evangelical Christians define it. The Oneness don't believe in the Trinity, and neither does he. That is heresy.

 

What scripture have you provided? Interpretation has to have a contextual basis not mere assertion! If you have provided any scripture with any contextual based interpretation, I have not seen it! All I have read from you is unfounded assertions!

In direct contrast I have proved scripture with interpretation based upon grammar and context. You have not dealt with a single interpretation except for making unfounded assertions in response.

 

Ban me if you think that would solve your problem.*

Crucifixion was supposed to solve a problem over 2000 years ago because they were challenged by truth.*

If banning someone for having a different view is what you have to do, then do it. *But if you're going to have a forum entitled "other Christians denominations/debate other denominations, doctrines & beliefs". You probably might want to change that.*

Oh yea DHK how many people have ever come to Christ from your postings. I've known you for 11 years or so and you've given yourself over to senseless debates for most of that time. Everytime you get backed into a corner your only retreat has always been to ban someone. *

Proverbs 27:7 The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

I used to be as blind as you once!

BTW, I'm not angry...I'm just frustrated that people are so closed minded enough to think b/c someone says they believe in Jesus...You say you believe in another Jesus!

If you truely understood the heart of someone who really wants to serve God with all theyre heart and puts their complete faith in him to get told they worship a different Jesus is completely heart breaking. You or anyone else has no way to know or understand someone else's relationship with Christ based on your interpretation!

 

I would be happy to give you plenty of scripture. But the problem that I run into when I give scripture is I get labeled as a oneness believer and get banned.*

So in my replys I try to be as vague as possible without getting labeled.*

My beliefs are humble but straight forward. I used to look at only the way I viewed things and never tried to see anyone elses views or perspectives. *But over the course of the past 12 years I've learned that if I keep an open mind it keeps me from a position from judging people. *

Although I do hold to a more monotheistic view of the Godhead, I'm not naive enough to condemn someone else who believes differently than I.*

The Word of God will never change but our interpretations are always open and vulnerable.*

I am always open to debate the word of god (although it's usually pointless but exciting). For me, discussing the word usually sharpens me. Although minds are rarely changed it always highlights what I believe and why I believe it!

 

Sorry this got skipped over.

I'm not being rude! No attitude in this post at all. Sorry if it appeared that way.

I used baptism to to show two options. I could have used anything else...it was just quick and convienient!

DHK, I'm a Christian!

 

Here is what you said:

That is rude.

It also demonstrates your belief in the heresy of baptismal regeneration, doesn't it?

So the Mormons say the same thing: "Church of the Latter Day Saints.

But here is what was asked of you: not whether you were a Christian or not, but:

You put "Christian." You fail. Try again.

 

I don't have the power to ban people. The administration does that. I am simply a moderator. But if you would like me to convey your request to an administrator so that they can discuss your situation, I certainly can do that for you.

Who said that?
1. Christ died for all of our sins (1John 2:2), but the blood that he shed is only efficacious to those who believe on his atoning sacrifice. It is by faith alone that one is saved.
2 Baptism plays no part. If anyone believes that baptism is a part of their salvation they are not saved. For then they are trusting in their baptism and not in Christ.

Again, I don't ban people. Where did you get that idea?
Demonstrate to me that you are a Christian. Right now you can't even be honest with me. The mark of a Christian is his integrity and honesty. Do you hide behind the vague name of "Christian" when you are really "Oneness"? Is that honesty?

You just said this is a Christian denominations forum. If everyone here is a Christian, then there shouldn't be any need to lead one to Christ, at least not on this forum. Or is this an admission that you need Christ. If so, you can pm me and I will explain to you how to be saved.

1. This is another admission of you not being honest with the board, or being downright deceitful, IMO. Isn't that so?
First, you say that you have known me for 11 years or so.
Second, your profile says that you only joined this board in 2008, 3 years ago.
Thus that leads me to believe that you were on this board previous to that as another poster, perhaps as a banned Oneness poster. So which name did you post under previous to 2008? A true Christian has integrity. I don't see much of that here.

2. Why do you falsely accuse me. You say that everytime I get backed into a corner I retreat and ban someone. I tell you again: I don't have the power to ban anyone. That is the job of the administration.

I don't know who you used to follow; but you are blind now, following a dangerous cult that leads people to hell and knows not the truth.

If Christ is not the second person of the trinity he is not the Christ of the Bible, he is some other Christ, and the Bible says that the person who preaches about that Christ is accursed. (Gal.2:8)

Believe me. I know all about that. My family is Roman Catholic, devoutly so. They believe they are worshiping Christ with all their heart, but they are not. The worship Mary. They pray to the dead. They commit idolatry. Their religion is not a faith which teaches justification by faith alone, but rather salvation by works, and therefore is at odds with what the Bible teaches about salvation. You must choose to believe what the RCC teaches about salvation or what the Bible teaches about salvation. You cannot believe both. And that is the same with Oneness. You cannot believe both, no matter how sincere you are.

If you don't have a relationship with the Christ of the Bible, the second person of the triune Godhead, then you don't have a realtionship with Christ at all.

 

You see, DHK its statements like that that cause others to get riled up and become agitated. (and I am guilty of making statements like that as well, I need to do better, too)

You say...

THEY follow the Bible too, DHK. You arent the only one who follows the bible.

Just because you and I dont hold to Calivinism doesnt mean those who don't...dont "follow the Bible"

They just have a different view of it then we do. They have that right.


AiC

 

My reply was to Biwald, who sometimes posts like an unbeliever. I have no qualms about being blunt with those who need things to be told to them in black and white, clear-cut terms. Biwald made the statement that one has to be regenerated before saved. I replied that that was a Calvinist doctrine (which it is), and that I am not a Calvinist. I derive my doctrines from the Bible not Calvin. Be offended if you wish. I will not apologize for the truth. I never have.

They have their right to have their theology influenced by a man. They probably never would have come to those conclusions without the influence of Calvin. Many of my friends are Calvinists. I have no argument with them. And I don't know what your argument is either. You are totally off base here. My answer was to Biwald, and you are taking it out of context. It is not the topic of this thread. Oneness Theology is.

Oneness Theology is heresy, not Calvinism.
Oneness Theology denies the trinity.
Oneness Theology denies justification by faith.
Oneness Theology is a religion of works.
Oneness Theology believes in baptismal regeneration.
Oneness Theology does not believe that Christ is the second person of the triune Godhead.
Oneness Theology believes that only Oneness people will go to heaven.

Oneness Theology is totally heresy, and aren't you one of the ones that have been here defending it?????????????

 

A quick thing to add about salvation and knowing Jesus as God the Son our Savior is this:

John's Gospel is full of evidence in the divinity of Jesus. In fact it was John's purpose. Many aspects of the his Gospel shows us this.

John's purpose: 20:31, "But these things have been written so you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

John wrote His Gospel so we would believe that Jesus is the:

1) Christ
2) Son of God

and trust in Him leads to eternal life.

Son of God is a claim to deity not just a cute title. Jesus is both Son of God and Son of Man. God-man (Human and divine nature). He is the Messiah written about in the Old Testament. God in flesh.

 

Like I said, lots of unfounded assertions but no Biblical basis has been provided. I have given you several uncontested Biblical facts.

1. Jesus claimed that His witness alone was false apart from the witness of the Father and John the Baptist thus invoking the Biblical Judicial minimum to verify words:

Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Cor. 13:1.....In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Now, lets deal with the apparent facts of these statements. In a court of law, God required that the testimony against someone be invalid if there were not at least one or two more that would confirm it. Jesus calls on this rule to validate his witness and claims that his testimony alone should not be accepted as true unless there are two or more witnesses to confirm it.

The Oneness doctrine claims that The Father is just another title for the SAME PERSON and if that were true than Jesus would be bearing witness by the SAME PERSON and not another as demanded by this law.

Jesus explicitly states "THERE IS ANOTHER" that bears witness IN ADDITION to himself and he refers to THE FATHER as an INDEPENDENT witness IN ADDITION to his own witness. He uses the PRESENT TENSE ("IS") which demands that this additional witness CO-EXISTS with himself and yet is INDEPENDENT from Himself as a PERSON as the law only accepted the witnesses of PERSONS.

The Oneness doctrine invalidates this rule of Judicial law and denies the Father has present tense existence ("is") as a SEPARATE INDEPENDENT WITNESS from Jesus but demands there is but ONE PERSON (Jesus) who simply has two titles or offices.

This Law that Jesus invoked for his own defense would not allow any single person to come before the court and claim that he is a Father, as well as a son and a husband and that he would like to give witness in each capacity or title to fulfil this law. Such a person would be laughed out of court. Yet this is exactly what the Oneness doctrine demands in order to fulfill this law.

 

Let me just ask, have you ever had your whole rebuttle typed out and then you hit the wrong button and loose everything. Kind of bites. Wrote this twice. Feel like the first time was better LOL

Do what you think you need to do.

The Bible

Again, I never mentioned anything about baptism. I was just using it to illustrate how in order for someone else to be saved they have to believe exactly the way you do and interpret scripture the exact same way you do. I was just using it to match up something.

Demonstrate to you that I'm a Christian, Ok I follow Jesus Christ. That's what a Christian is. If you want to get technical about it, I'm not a Oneness. Although I do hold to a more monotheistic view than you.

Fair enough. But if everyone here is a Christian than there's no need to to ban certain denominations then is there. If it's for debating and discussion about those other denominations, don't you think it’s more fruitful for those who believe those views to debate them.

You talk about cults, sounds to me like you are the ones trying to keep everything that’s like you in, and everything that’s unlike you out. Hey, I'm a Baptist; this is what Catholics, Oneness, Atheist, etc believe. Take my word for it!

DHK, maybe I have 2 screen names, maybe I changed my screen name, maybe I was banned and created a new screen name. Maybe I used to believe a certain way and not anymore so I didn't want to be associated with that name any longer. So how I knew you and when I knew you is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with integrity!

But as Stanedglass, I can assure you that I filled out an application, was screened and here I am. I was honest with all the information I gave.

Christians aren't supposed to Judge right?

If Christ is not the second person of the trinity he is not the Christ of the Bible, he is some other Christ, and the Bible says that the person who preaches about that Christ is accursed. (Gal.2:8)

Again this is your interpretation. You have no scripture that says this.

I believe in the Christ who died for my sins. Is there another? The Christ that was buried. Is there another? The Christ that rose again the third day. Is there another? The Christ that ascended into heaven. Is there another?

Maybe according to your interpretation, but not according to the bible.

Catholics still worship the same Christ. But the way in which they worship him is unbiblical.

I have a relationship with Jesus the Creator (Col 1:16), Emanuel God with us (Mat 1:23) The Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8) The first and last (Rev 1:11) That which was and is and is to come (Rev 4:8).

My relationship is with the Jesus of the Bible. But if I choose not to view him as 2nd has no bearing on my salvation.

 

Sometimes, it's a good idea to just suck it up and play dead (in regards to the forums) for a while.

I used to get into it with several on this board and another board and it used to *really* hurt and get under my skin.

So, I walked away for a while. (I even kept getting Birthday Greetings!)

My log-in was still intact when I came back and I am enjoying the give and take a lot more now.

None of us thinks as well, once our emotions get involved...

One thing this Classical Pentecostal has learned, visiting here though, is that a few of my much cherished minor "truths" have been challenged.

In some cases they have been strengthened, in other cases a forced modification was in order.

Pro 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

If your iron is too brittle it is not meant for battle...

Or, maybe, the rest of us are not counted as Friends?

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

For all of us, let's wounds as friends and not as enemies intending death...

 

You still have not responded to my post where I challenged the idea that the Jesus of the Bible is a monotheistic God in the sense of one person with three offices or titles. Again you make unfounded assertions without any Biblical basis.

The Jehovah's Witnesses could make the same exact argument that you have. They could claim they believe in the God of the Bible, whose name is Jehovah, our heavenly Father and dismiss The Holy Spirit and Jesus to the same equivilency that you do (titles) but not persons in the a Triune Godhead but still claim they are followers of Jesus and believe in him as their redeemer. However, their god is a false as your god as neither is the God of the Bible. Their Jesus is "another Jesus" just as yours is "another Jesus" and no amount of faith in "another Jesus" will save anyone as that is simply idolatrous worship.

 

But how can I do that without getting labeled as a Oneness?

The question was asked "What must I do to be saved.' The answer according to the bible was "Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16)

According to the your theology, and your knowledge of the Bible was the Jailer ever saved?

Was there any mention that you have to believe that he is part of the Trinity or Second in order. No! The only requirement was to believe that he was Lord!

But today on this forum when I ask you what must I do to be saved you say I have to believe. Then today its asked of me well who do you put your trust in. I say Jesus. You say which Jesus? On and on it goes until they only way that I am putting my trust in the Jesus of the bible is to agree completley with what you interpret!

You've added to the solution. Now my faith alone does not save me but my knowledge of who I put my trust in does. Being saved by my knowledge is the same as being saved by Works. Anyway you slice it.

 

Evidence stands on its own merits! Simply demonstrate on the contextual merits of the Scriptuers that the evidence I presented concerning two or more witnesses is in error!

This is a rediculous argument! The Jehovah's Witness will also call Jesus "Lord" but not in the same sense as Paul meant it! If Paul meant it in the sense of the Jehovah's Witness definition then obviously the jailor is not a saved man BY YOUR DEFINITION OF THE TERM "LORD." Because by YOUR DEFINITION of the term "Lord" as applied to Christ you mean "GOD" in His Totality as ONE PERSON. By the JW definition he is not "GOD" in ANY SENSE in relation to the term Jehovah. Now, since the JW do recognize him by that same term "Lord" but deny this term means "GOD" in application to Jesus, then does that make the JW is a saved person????????? If not, why not? I will tell you why! The meaning you place on the term determines the nature of the one you are applying it to!!!!

Do you get the problem? By the JW definition of "Lord" there is no God acknowledged but still the JW accepts Jesus as he defines "Lord" to be his Savior.

By the ONENESS definition of "Lord" and application to Jesus there is a DIFFERENT KIND OF god than the Trinitarian definition and application. They are not the SAME GOD and therefore one or both by definition have "ANOTHER JESUS." Get it?

To argue that mere use of the same label but defining it differently makes no essential difference in respect to one's faith is stupid. We just as well argue that "cold" can be defined either "hot" or "non-hot" and makes no difference just as long as the term "cold" is used by both parties that disagree on its application. There is no salvation in any other Jesus than the Biblically defined Jesus. He cannot be the SAME Jesus defined by the JW and the Oneness movement and saving faith must have for its object the BIBLICAL JESUS rather than "another Jesus."

Both you and the JW believe in "another Jesus" other than the Biblical REVEALED Jesus and there is no salvation for either of you by faith in "another Jesus" any more than there is salvation in "another gospel" but rather Paul says that those who preach "another gospel" are accursed. Why? Because they deny the Biblical terms "gospel of Christ"? No! They both use the same term! They deny the Bibical revelation that properly DEFINES THAT TERM!

 

That is a very good point.

There is much involved in Lordship, though.

Something most Christians do not fully grasp.

Lord meant undisputed ruling authority in ones life.

To be "Lord" meant you held life and death and everything in between for an individual or group of individuals.


To be Lord in a Christian sense meant Jesus had to be at least co-equal with God. Remember to the Jew there is no Lord but Jehovah and He is One.

To call Jesus "Lord" would be blasphemy to the Jew...

Yet, we also hear, often, that there is a Father and a Holy Spirit involved as well. And, they are spoken of a separate entities.

Most Christians only acknowledge Jesus as savior...

 

No, it is not a good point because of the context. You are allowing him to read into the term "Lord" his definition rather than Paul's definition. Luke is not giving us a full account of every word Paul preached. Paul did not preach that Jesus Christ is Jehovah in totality.

 

The Bible makes no such statement. Let me repost your quote, this time in context so that you can see that "it has no context," but is an off-the-wall comment.

Your statement is not from the Bible.
The problem that crucifixion solved 2000 years ago was that it was a mode of execution that punished criminals, and was used by the Roman government to do so.
That form of execution solved a problem of crime but it did not challenge truth.
What truth are you speaking of? Define it? The "truth" of Oneness, The RCC, the Hindus? What truth are speaking of? Your statement makes no sense, and it is not found in the Bible as you affirm.

Do you or do you not believe that baptism is essential to salvation?

1. Do you follow Jesus? Demonstrate it. I highly doubt it. The Jesus of the Bible is the second person of the triune Godhead. If that is not the Jesus you follow then you follow another god who is not Jesus at all. You are like the Muslim who also claims to follow Jesus. That have a high respect for him. He is one of their prophets, but that is all that he is--a prophet. And to you Jesus is less than the triune Godhead, less than the Son of God, which puts him less than God. That is the ultimate logical conclusion of denying him as the second person of the trinity--it is an attack on his deity.

The key here is: It is for Christian denominations.
Oneness is not a Christian denomination, and neither is the RCC.
Christian according to you, is not necessarily Christian.
In fact you don't understand what a Christian is do you? That is why you won't even enter into the field in your profile which says "denomination" of which denomination you are. You are being deceitful about it, and cannot honestly answer as a Christian. If you were truly a Christian you would have no fear about putting down what denomination you were from. Correct?
Christian denominations are just that--"Christian"

It has nothing to do with "being like me." "Spiritualmadman" has posted here a few times recently. He identifies himself as a "Classic Pentecostal." I have more in common with him than with you, the Church of Christ, the Anglicans, The RCC, the Oneness, and many others, though his views are very different and the Pentecostal speaking in tongues doctrines I am constantly speaking out against. We have our disagreements. There is much to disagree about. But there is one thing in common. He knows the Lord as His Savior. He is an evangelical Christian. He can defend his faith. The Christ that he serves is the same Christ as I serve, despite the error that he may believe in. That is the difference. Therefore I have more respect for him than for you, and all the others mentioned, in that you have only demonstrated that you serve a false Christ.
And no I don't take your word for it!!

That alone is cause for immediate banning under the rules.
You were banned for a reason; not to come in again as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It has everything to do with integrity. It is not permitted. Your screenname cannot be changed without the express permission of the administration. If you do so, then that is deceit. That is not honesty, that is deceitfulness.

No you haven't been. What you gave was generic. No one knows what denomination you are. I don't know how you were approved with the information that you gave.

Who said that? Where did you get that idea? You judge every day.
All throughout this thread you have been judging me.
I have yet to judge you as a Christian because you have not brought forth any evidence. But here is what Jesus says about judging:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24)

 

Ok, we're at an impass!