"Oneness Pentecostals" cult!

Sounds like somebody just had a run in with the oneness crowd.

They must be inconsistent on the shaving bit, the one minister I know had a beard like ZZ-Top.

 

Well, Baptists won't let you in the church if you haven't gotten wet enough.

Just saying we all have our stuff.

 

Theres a big difference in 'our stuff' when someone is denying the Trinity

 

That bunch of nuts don't even believe Jesus was Saved! Jesus NEVER "spoke in tongues."

 

By what measuring tool are you using to come up with that?

 

What is your point of reference for the above statement?

thanks.

 

AAA,

The only good remedy against Oneness Pentecostals is good Bible teaching and the grace of God. That's what lead me out of a UPC.

The whole Pentecostal movement comes from the holiness movement, which came from the Wesleyan Arminian movement, started by John and Charles Wesley.

Bad fruit from bad teaching.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Monergism.com has many articles on it.

Also, try Phil Johnson's Bookmarks on spurgeon.org.

You might also find something on it from his Hall of Church History, it's all a part of the same site.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

As far as I can tell, Oneness doesn't deny the Trinity, they merely go a different way to get to the Trinity.

 

I've heard with my own ears Oneness Pentecostals saying the Trinity was Antichrist and polytheistic.

Warning:This is heresy. I've only posted this to show what the Oneness people think of the orthodox Christian and Biblical teaching of the Trinity and those who believe it.

Here's a sample:http://www.onenesschristian.org/audio/TrinityIsAntichristSermon1-28-2006.html


This was taught in the UPC I went to as well.

Note the masterful butchering of verses out of context, and the convenient bad hermanutic.


This, my brethren, is fruit of the so-called holiness movement.

Wesley would roll over in his grave.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

Edit:The Trinity teaching had already been long established before the RCC, as evidenced by the early church creeds. His end comment has no basis in reality.

 

I guess it comes down to what, precisely is required for salvation.

I'm not entirely convinced that one's Trintiarian theology has to be perfect in order for the blood of Jesus to cover you.

 

I see your point. But declaring Trinitarian theology as Antichrist is a little bit different from not understanding what the Trinity is.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Grace and Peace Everyone,

I've been studying this topic a bit lately...

Saint Athanasius
(ca. 296-373)

Bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 373. An uncompromising foe of Arianism, Athanasius was particularly instrumental in bringing about its condemnation at the Council of Nicaea. He is regarded as the greatest theologian of his time.

Athanasius grew up within the order of the imperial church, an institution to which he held fast throughout his life. Of his early years little is known. It is said that he was the son of well-to-do parents, but in later years he made it clear that he was a poor man. As a youth he attracted the notice of Alexander, who presided over the see of Alexandria. At an early age Athanasius was taken into the household of the bishop and was provided the best training that the times could afford. His education was essentially Greek; he was a "classicist" and never seems to have acquired any knowledge of Hebrew. He demonstrated, of course, the influence both of his patron, Alexander, and of the earlier Alexandrian thinker, Origen. He numbered among his earlier acquaintances and tutors some who had suffered in the great persecutions, and he no doubt drew some of the intensity of his belief from the fervency engendered in those crucial years. Not long after he turned twenty, Athanasius plunged into writing and produced theological works of lasting importance. One was the Contra Gentiles, a defense of Christianity against paganism; another was the De incarnatione, an attempt to explain the doctrine of redemption.

During this period of writing Athanasius was acting as the secretary and confidant of his bishop, by whom he was personally made deacon. It was in this capacity that he attended the first general council held in Nicaea in 325. At the council the anti-Arian party led by Bishop Alexander won a resounding victory over Arian subordinationism. The council affirmed that the Son of God was "of one substance with the Father," which means that both share alike in the fundamental nature of deity. After the council concluded, Athanasius returned with his bishop to Alexandria and continued to work with him in establishing the faith that had been defined at Nicaea. In 328 Alexander died and Athanasius succeeded him in the see.

The tenure of Athanasius as Bishop of Alexandria was marked by five periods of exile. His vigorous defense of the Nicene formula caused him to be a target for the supporters of Arius, who rallied after the council. However, during his forty-six years as bishop there were enough years of relative peace in the empire and the church for Athanasius to accomplish much as a theologian. Admittedly he was a churchman and a pastor rather than a systematic or speculative theologian. However, this does not mean that his thought is not cogent, but that his work developed in response to the needs of each moment rather than on the basis of the requirements of a system. His works are pastoral, exegetical, polemical, and even biographical; there is no single treatise that attempts to present the totality of his theology. Nevertheless, for Athanasius the truth or falsity of a doctrine is to be judged on the basis of the degree in which it expresses two basic principles of the Christian faith: monotheism and the doctrine of salvation. These are the foci for his theological reflection.

In Contra Gentiles, Athanasius discusses the means by which God can be known. These are principally two: the soul and nature. God may be known through the human soul, for "although God Himself is above all, the road which leads to Him is not far, nor even outside ourselves, but is within us, and it is possible to find it by ourselves" (30.1). That is to say, by studying the soul we may infer something about the nature of God. The soul is invisible and immortal; therefore, the true God must be invisible and immortal. To be sure, sin prevents the soul from perfectly attaining the vision of God, but the soul was made according to the divine image and it was intended to be like a mirror in which that image, which is the Word of God, would shine. This is a Platonic theme that had become part of the Alexandrian tradition since Origen.

It is also possible to know God through his creation, which, "as though in written characters, declares in a loud voice, by its order and harmony, its own Lord and Creator" (Contra Gentiles, 34.4). But the order of the universe shows not only that there is a God but also that he is one. If there were more than one God, the unity of purpose that can be perceived throughout the cosmos would be impossible. Moreover, the order and reason within nature show that God has created it and rules it through his Word. For Athanasius, the Word of God who rules the world is the living Logos of God, that is, the Word who is God himself. This view of God indicates that Athanasius, even before becoming involved in the Arian conflict, had developed an understanding of the Word that was different, not only from the Arians, but also from that view held by many earlier theologians. Before Athanasius there was a tendency to establish the distinction between the Father and the Word on the basis of the contrast between the absolute God and a subordinate deity. This was, Athanasius insisted, incompatible with Christian monotheism.

The other pillar of Athanasius's theology was soteriology. The salvation of which humanity stands in need is continuous with creation, for it is in fact a re-creation of fallen humanity. In sin, man abandoned the image of God; an element of disintegration was introduced within creation through sin. It can be expelled only through a new work of creation. Consequently, the core of Athanasius's doctrine of redemption is that only God himself can save mankind. If the salvation that we need is really a new creation, only the Creator can bring it. This requires the Savior to be God, for only God can grant an existence similar to his.

The principles of monotheism and the doctrine of redemption influenced Athanasius in his formulation of arguments against the Arians. Whereas they usually appealed to logical analysis and subtle distinctions, Athanasius constantly referred to the two great pillars of his faith. In this sense, the importance of Athanasius lies not so much in his writings themselves as in the things he defended and preserved in a life full of tension and disturbance. In a critical moment in the church's history he maintained the essential character of Christianity in his struggles with Arians and emperors. But for him, Harnack has said (History of Dogma, II), the church would probably have fallen into the hands of the Arians.

J F Johnson
Elwell Evangelical Dictionary

 

so do you think the petty stuff we argue about is the same as denying the Trinity?

 

We've had oness penecostals on here in the past who argued there was no Trinity.