Shortly after my conversion to Christ in 2002 in the charismatic movement of the Catholic church, I became affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), a Oneness Pentecostal group that broke away from the Assemblies of God over the New Issue of baptism, which ultimately led to the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and the upholding of Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation. In 2003, I officially became part of a UPCI church and started my journey toward knowing more fully Christ. I earned a degree at one of the UPCI-endorsed Bible colleges. I appreciate all that took place in that time—the friends I made and the spiritual and academic foundation that was laid—and how I grew in grace in that time period.
Now, eight years since I became a Christian and toward the end of my MA degree from a well-respected seminary, I am no longer a Oneness Pentecostal. Some have attributed this change to my going to seminary. This is certainly not the case, although seminary has played a role in helping me to broaden my understanding of Christianity, both past and present. Contrary to these claims, a few reasons that I left the UPCI, which I shall briefly detail below, are the result of personal study and long reflection on church history, experience, and Scripture. Seminary gave me the tools and the freedom to study for myself, but it did not make those decisions for me. What follows is, of course, not an exhaustive set of reasons for why I am not a Oneness Pentecostal anymore.
My interest in church history spans the apostolic period to the Chalcedon council. Part of the problem I ran into as a Oneness Pentecostal was the ecumenical declarations against the Oneness doctrine I held. For example, modalism had been condemned. Now, even though I did not hold to a Sabellian-type modalism, the modalism to which I did hold had already been written against by the ante-Nicene Fathers. In short, however the Fathers were describing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it looked nothing like the Oneness view in its various flavors.
In addition to other things, Oneness Pentecostals believe that one must receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, to be saved. Those Oneness people that I know had a pre-set formula to “pray someone through” to receive the Holy Spirit. Someone would coach the Holy Spirit seeker with a formula that went something like this: (1) pray that God would forgive you; (2) now that He has forgiven you, rejoice and praise God; (3) keep praising God until the feeling begins to overflow within you; (4) as soon as the overflow begins to reach your mouth, let your tongue go. If all of those steps are done correctly, then one will speak in tongues. Most of the time, however, it takes many tries with this formula for the speaker to finally speak in tongues. I am not one to cast doubt on the legitimacy of whether a person speaks in tongues using the formula; I believe that many have. This formula, however, is at odds with my experience (and the experience of the hundreds of others that same day), where I did not need to be coached. When I spoke in tongues for the first time, all I did was stood up and praised God, and He gave me the utterance to speak in other tongues—no coaching, no formula, and no waiting around. What most Oneness Pentecostals would find odd is that I first spoke in tongues at a charismatic Catholic service. To attest to the validity of the work of the Spirit in me that day, I was delivered the day I spoke in tongues from my use of crystal methamphetamines and I worked in the gift of discerning of spirits the very next day.
I believe that speaking in tongues is a good thing. However, I do not believe that if someone has never spoken in tongues then he or she is not saved. Instead, I concur with the major theme of the New Testament that a person who genuinely is filled with and walks in the Spirit is one who loves both God and neighbor. Among those whom I know, there seem to be more who have not spoken in tongues and yet are overcoming sin and exhibiting true, godly love compared to Oneness people I know who have spoken in tongues.
My third point of departure with the Oneness group came through a study of Scripture. While I was at Bible college, I learned of ways to sidestep Scripture passages that dealt with the Son’s preexistence, with the interaction between the Father and the Son, as well as sidestep the language that clearly showed the Holy Spirit as distinct from both the Father and the Son. As I reflect back, I could see that my theology professor’s view of Oneness theology borrowed from much of Trinitarian theology while seemingly presenting these theological nuances as exclusive to Oneness. Although he meant well and sought to further develop Oneness theology, the adoption of ideas from and the lack of proper teaching on Trinitarian theology seems to indicate that even he knew the truth that Trinitarian theology upheld. Even though I have always admired Oneness Pentecostals for their devotion to the oneness of God, such devotion is misguided when it does not line up with Scripture and has been rejected by the ecumenical councils that have defined the Trinitarian position from both Scripture and the broad teaching of the church in the early centuries.
I harbor no ill feelings toward the Oneness Pentecostal movement. Many of my close friends still today are Oneness Pentecostals. I have gratitude for the spiritual tenacity that the Oneness movement possesses because it was at a Oneness Bible college and church that I learned to draw closer to God. Yet, I cannot be a part of a movement that sets itself up having a monopoly on the nature of God, on holiness standards, and on salvation. I am afraid that because the Oneness movement has pushed itself away from the broader church and relies upon its own private Scriptural insights that it has missed the fact that God has called and saved a universal church larger than the Oneness movement to be holy and conformed to the image of the Son.
the archives near Emmaus 
Great post JD and good to hear some of your story. As an aside, here in Australia the kind of group you describe are considered a cult. I’m not saying that is what you were a part of but it is interesting (from my point of view).
Well said JD.
Very well said. It’s amazing how one can question the validity of ones salvation when you get saved at a RC fellowship…
Wow, this is a surprising development.
Thanks for sharing JohnDave! It is always good to read someone’s reasoning for leaving oneness pentecostalism. So many people stay simply because they are afraid of rejection and what others may say. I hope that this post will help people see the error and danger of being involved in such a sectarian group.
Great post, JohnDave. It’s truly great to see how the Spirit works in all groups drawing all men closer to the truth.
Peace.
@JohnDave: Thank you for sharing! For those who have never been part of this group it may be hard to understand how tough it can be to leave. Many within want to leave because the errors and abuses become apparent, but it has been drilled into their heads that this is the “only” pure Christianity. Along with JohnDave let me say there is life outside those circles. God’s love is felt. The Spirit moves. Christ is glorified. I hope this type of testimony will give boldness to those who feel stuck.
JohnDave and Brian, if you don’t mind me asking, as former Oneness Pentecostals, what would you identify yourselves as of now?
@Daniel: I would probably define myself broadly as an evangelical. As far as denominations are concerned my greatest influences have been Baptist and Pentecostals (of the Gordon D. Fee category, not Oneness), but I could find enough commonality with Anglicans and Methodist and maybe even some Lutherans that depending on the local expression it wouldn’t be hard for me to join.
“Yet, I cannot be a part of a movement that sets itself up having a monopoly on the nature of God, on holiness standards, and on salvation.”
JD, don’t you think those who look to Church History as their ultimate authority for reading Scripture and understanding God’s nature is a way of “setting itself up as a monopoly on the nature of God?”
And how many denominations argue over salvation? Baptismal regeneration?
Still, I can add to your list, and think of a dozen other reasons why one should steer clear of Apostolic Pentecostal churches.
Thanks for telling your story, Brian! While not in a Pentecostal Oneness group, my history includes being in a group that held itself to be the only true “disciple-making” church, and so viewed other churches and Christians as somehow defective and “uncommitted.” Also, as with most of those type churches, our exit from that particular church was difficult, prolonged, and met with derision and condescension from those who remained. It seems very clear that God is using your experience with this sect (is it okay to cal them that?) for many purposes, now and future! Thanks.
@Ken: I should clarify that this is JohnDave Medina’s story. I posted it to Twitter/Facebook, but he is the one who wrote it. That being said, as we have discussed, I think we have similar stories (JohnDave included) and I do think that it would be rightly called a “sect” (though as Mark Stevens noted above there are many that would consider them a cult, and I would say some of the churches in this movement do qualify as cultic). I hope along with JohnDave that we can continue to show there is life after you leave!
I appreciate the comments everyone.
@Mark: I’m not surprised. The Oneness churches are generally considered a cult, even here in America.
@Craig: I’m glad I my closest Oneness circles were more moderate in their views. Even if Oneness at large questioned the salvation of others, I certainly couldn’t because of my own experience.
@Rod: There’s more to come!
@Joshua: I wished I could have outlined more, but then the post would probably have gotten too cumbersome. In addition, I wanted to highlight that not all people don’t just pack up and leave on a whim, but some leave Oneness because of careful thought and reflection.
@Brian: I think you’ve pointed out one of the greatest dangers of Oneness Pentecostalism, and why I think its setting itself up as true Christianity is a problem. For one who struggles with it and leaves a Oneness church, there is a yoyo effect of leaving because of problems with the Oneness church and then feeling guilty that they turned away from God and then coming right to that same church that has problems. It’s a problematic cycle. Thanks for pointing out the work of God in broader Christianity.
@Daniel: Yes, God is truly good! I’ll be posting more on my development, but at this time I would say that I’m a charismatic Catholic with evangelical leanings.
@Gary: Great question. I don’t think those who look to church history set themselves up with the kind of monopoly that the Oneness people do. I think that even without church history one can see a Trinitarian conception in the Scriptures, while Oneness will claim that their view is the proper view of God and stand in contradiction to the whole of Scripture. On the issue of salvation, Oneness groups will generally claim that Acts 2:38 is the only way to be saved, which is different than arguing over salvation but in the end accepting the other person as a genuine Christian. Yes, there is much more to be said about Apostolic Pentecostal churches — any thoughts on that?
@Ken (and whoever else is interested): I don’t want to take away from what @JohnDave has written here, but if anyone is wondering if I have addressed my own departure the answer is “Yes!”. I wrote my reasons for leaving Oneness Pentecostalism over a year ago. See the following:
“Why I Left Oneness Pentecostalism”: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/why-i-left-oneness-pentecostalism/
“Yes, I Left. No, It is Not Sad. Oneness Pentecostals and I in Context”: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/yes-i-left-no-it-is-not-sad-oneness-pentecostals-and-i-in-context/
@Ken: Thank you for the encouraging words. Your last sentence is the aim and hope I have for this post. Like you, my own journey out was prolonged — I did my best to make many careful steps. I have tried to avoid the condescension and derision, but I’m afraid that for me those things are going to begin soon enough.
@Brian: Share away!
@JohnDave: Thanks! And yes, you will soon hear it from current Oneness Pentecostals. I don’t blame them, especially those who went to college with us. It has to be frustrating to see people you know are committed to Christ openly rejecting the views you hold dear. That being said, openly reject we must.
Sounds like a bad dream….. How many people, dear friends that once understood the precious message of Oneness doctrine, the necessity of the infilling of the Holy Spirit and living a holy life, have come to a point that those essentials mean nothing…. Humanity will never be able to relate to God through intellect! Faith is required!
Go ahead and label “old fashioned” Pentecostals as misguided extremists, Continue to justify your rejection of truth but don’t expect the declarations of some bygone ecumenical council to quench the grasping thirst of mankind! Don’t expect the lost sinner, desperate for relief to find it in a ten page position paper. When the rubber hits the road, remember to call on the authority and awesome majesty of the name of Jesus… He became flesh, His blood paid the price, and He is always the answer.
@Jonathan: I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. Neither JohnDave nor I abandoned “faith seeking reason“. We begin with faith in Christ as you claim to do. Yet we have been given Scripture and the fellowship of the saints (both dead and alive) so that we can avoid sectarian error. This is not “position paper” v. “the name of Jesus”. To reframe it that way is to ignore JohnDave’s story.
@Brian: Well said! There’s going to be a lot of back-and-forth, but your and my credentials and rapport with our Oneness friends should say a lot. I do remember that Paul, despite all of his Jewish credentials, did manage to stir up a way of hatred toward himself though.
@Jonathan: You’re drawing all the wrong conclusions and implications from what I said. Brian already pointed out the false dichotomy. Let me add that Trinitarian Christians aren’t only intellectual but they’re bent on living a life of faith and a life of Christ. The ecumenical councils can’t be discounted so quickly, since they involved the whole range of church leaders at the time and they were working from Scripture. I’m also sure that someone searching for Christ will find relief in a 10-page position paper much quickly than they would reading through The Oneness of God, The New Birth, and Search for Truth. Regarding “rejection of truth,” here is the truth: none of the ante-Nicene Fathers advocated any Oneness view but instead rejected it, I received the Spirit in a charismatic Catholic church and I was delivered and worked in one spiritual gift, and Scripture itself does not support the Oneness view. So I would reject what you define as truth, but truth hasn’t escaped me. I appreciate the push back.
@Brian: Fee is hands down one of my favorites. I’m trying to get Wipf & Stock to send me his new Revelation commentary to review 🙂
I’m sorry people are derisive of your choice to change your beliefs. I still am Oneness but I see no point in being unkind to those who no longer believe as I do. I understand your reasons but I’m bothered by people who list the reason as Pentecostalism being a cult. I suppose there are churches that are cult-like but to label our whole group as a cult seems to be saying we’re too stupid to believe anything but what our leaders tell us. Yes there are people who will be hateful to those who decide to leave, but believing there’s one truth doesn’t translate into the congregation being brain washed. I myself have formed my faith through my experiences, and have thought carefully about everything I believe, and while I don’t mind people telling me I’m wrong, it does bother me when people imply I’m stupid or blindly following because I don’t believe what they do. And yes that is a terrible run on sentence. 🙂
@Sharon: No problem and thanks for the apologies, although I’m not offended. I personally do not classify the Oneness movement in general as a cult, but agree with you that there are churches who are cultic. Part of the problem, however, is that Oneness in general is labelled as a cult, despite whether that is true or not. About blindly following another, I think this is the case among the greater Oneness movement. The evidence for this would be the election of D. K. Bernard as superintendent. His writings tend to go unchallenged and is soaked up among the Oneness masses, and his election seems to reflect his doctrinal popularity in addition to his leadership qualities. I believe you when you say that you have thought about things and have had experiences which have confirmed your thoughts, but I have also believe you are a bit different in a good way than many other Oneness Pentecostals. In all, I appreciate our friendship and are glad that it is strong enough that we can disagree and yet understand each other’s points of view. With regard to that last sentence, it was a fine one. 🙂
JohnDave: Thanks for sharing your experiences. I know that you said you wouldn’t call Oneness Pentecostalism a cult, but would you classify their theology/christology/soteriology as heretical?
I respect the position Bernard holds but I don’t agree with all of his opinions. That’s all I’ll say.
@Nick: I’m still up in arms about that whether Oneness theology would be heretical or heterodox. I would classify any already-condemned form of Oneness as heretical (for instance, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, adoptionism, etc.). I think, though, that some of the more recent developments in Oneness theology would be more heterodox, especially since it allows for Christ to be full God and full man and allows for God to exist in three modes at the same time, rather than sequentially. I know all of this plays into soteriology, but I’ll have to figure out more what I think the heterodox group before I make a call on that. I would say that the soteriology of those whose theology is from the condemned groups would be heretical, although I would leave their salvation itself up to God.
I occasionally teach at a local-church-based Bible institute (A/G using Berean School of the Bible courses), and in a couple of classes people have asked me about Oneness Pentecostals (it came up during the A/G History class, when we discussed the “New Issue”). I’m currently reading Greg Boyd’s Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Boyd’s story is similar to JohnDave’s — he started out in a Oneness church, but as he studied church history and the original languages, he saw errors in the Oneness arguments.
The book is very good. He covers the Scriptures that disprove modalism and show the eternal coexistence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and has a whole chapter on the early church fathers and their clearly Trinitarian views (though the word Trinity had not yet been coined). Basically, the historical argument is that if Oneness is what the Apostles taught, then how come second-century church fathers are clearly Trinitarian, but there is no evidence of any polemic against Trinitarian understanding, as one would expect if it were the “new” idea. There was, however, strong reaction against Sabellianism and other Oneness-style teachings, because they were outside the norm.
@Brian after all these years, I’d be curious how you define the “Baptism of the Spirit.” A
“second work” or is the indwelling presence of God at regeneration one in the same? The way the Acts narratives set this up, there appears to be a distinction between the two events (believing/coming to faith, and receiving the empowerment of the Spirit), though Classical Pentecostals deny distinctions — as well as Evangelical Fundamentalists. Curious where you are on this subject. Even after reading Fee’s thoughts on the Spirit, I haven’t really heard him get much into the nuances of this particular topic.
Well, I am sorry to hear about this Mr. Medina. Unfortunately there are possibly oneness groups that may be or seem a little pushy. I pray for them, However, I am very concerned because it should not have been the experience of tongues you sought, but the gift from the LORD Jesus. In the greek there is of course no reference pointing to a trinity. If you enjoy history maybe the history of the church from scripture would be nore beneficial as it is the Word of Truth. I pray that despite all these occurances that you would lose any bitterness toward our so called cult and just fall in love with the LORD. He shall direct your path, if you let him. May the LORD bless you.
@Bro. Davis: I’m unsure where you got the ideas that I “sought” to have an experience of tongues specifically and that I have “any bitterness” and that I haven’t “fall[en] in love with the LORD.” None of these are in this post. All I recounted was my experience of the first time I spoke in tongues, I specifically stated that I have no ill feelings toward the Oneness movement and that many of my close friends are Oneness Pentecostals, and I can assure you that they would testify to my still ongoing love for the LORD. I actually believe that the Greek gives many references pointing to the Trinity, but one need not even need to be able to read Greek to understand that the various forms of Oneness (Sabellianism, Praxeanism, modalism, etc.) are not found in Scripture. Concerning history, my interest is in the apostolic period, which includes those events in the Book of Acts. I appreciate your prayers, but your prayers are based on a misunderstanding. God bless!
@Brian Roden: I haven’t read Boyd’s book yet, but I agree with the historical argument. One of the things that has caught my attention as well is during the Arian controversy, it was never debated as to whether Jesus was the Father in some way, as Oneness wants to posit. They always assumed that Jesus was distinct from the Father, and not the Father.
First of all, the UPC does not represent the only version of the “oneness view”. That would be no different then saying all arabs are Muslim. You are passing judgement on a certain theology by the actions of just one MAN MADE organization called the UPC. You say that your strongest argument for your leaving the UPC is their lack of acceptance of the ecumenical movement. Yet, you have rejoined the catholic church. Which in fact, (the catholic church) has murdered to keep dominance & exclusion in the past. Might I add, had suppressed any difference in
opinion over 1,300 years. A church that has a lot more bad history & unbiblical beliefs than the UPC. I am not UPC affiliated, but they have much more truth than the mother church & her daughters. I would encourage you & anyone that reads this comment; to focus on God’s Spirit & his word as guidance to all truth. By the way, the Jews were seperate to the world. God calls us to be seperate. He tells us to be holy for he is holy. To be holy is to be separated. The path to destruction is wide. The path to God is narrow. Muslims & Catholics both boast 1billion strong each. That my friend is not narrow or seperate. The ecumenical movement is Biblicle but… In a bad way! Just like the devil is Biblicle. The ecumenical movement is a final call & gathering of believers for the anti christ! Not the real Christ! Jesus is the one & only Almighty God! Study some more brother. There is no 3 persons in God! He most definitely is an absolute one supreme being!
PRAISE JESUS!
Zechariah 14:9 (KJV)
9And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
God bless…
@Jose: Thanks for the comment. I think you need to reread my post again a few more times. I can’t recall saying that the UPC represents “the only version” of Oneness or that my “strongest argument” is “their lack of acceptance of the ecumenical movement.” I don’t deny that the Catholic church has done things wrongly in the past but to focus solely on that is to miss the many, many good and godly people in the Catholic church, both in the past and in the present. That’s like a non-Christian saying that all Christians are bad because they’ve had bad experience with a few problematic professing Christians. Jesus’ statement about the narrow and wide paths are about path of life, not about number of people. It could be possible that all 1 billion Catholics are on the narrow path of fighting sin and loving God. Oneness Pentecostals number at least over 10 million, which is still a lot of people. Your same argument can be used against the Oneness movement. Nothing in my post is about the ecumenical movement so you’re not really addressing anything. The reason I stay Catholic and not return to Oneness Pentecostalism (even though I have visited and talked with my Oneness friends many times since this was written) is because of my continued study and experience in the Catholic church. It’s hard for me to deny that my life and my studies is still guided by the Holy Spirit. Blessings to you in the distinct persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of whom the Law, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospel Evangelists, St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. John, and all the holy saints throughout the existence of the Church testify. Amen.
WOW!!! You will be struck down…………… Repent !!! Today
I really enjoyed these posts and have too been through much laborious studies and prayers over the Godhead issue. I can also appreciate the congeniality offered by each post to the other. Here’s my humble observation and have no mud to sling. It does appear that the oneness position holds to the authority given us by the original apostles. I believe it was Paul that stated in Acts 20:28-30 that after he was gone, even people among whom he spoke would speak perverse things discipling the flock after themselves. So I would say that using anyone or anything outside of what we have been given as instruction in rightieusness 2 Tim.3:16 would be extremely dangerous and though the council of Nicea has been wielded by both parties as conclusive, our attention should return to the only source given us. We have been afforded more access to knowledge, interpretation and counter views than all of the early church fathers put together. The most important part in the equation is the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is in my opinion,ever more present.
I would like to ask Mr. Medina about his statement “Jesus’ statement about the narrow and wide paths are about path of life, not about number of people”. If Jesus was referring to the path only why does he go on to relate it to the few that would enter it?
So, if this thread decides to use the only final court of arbitration and that alone, I would be obliged to be a part of it.
If this does go further, I would like to ask that the “God Head Mystery” exit not be permissable.
@Steve: You must be directing your comment to Jose, yeah? 😉
@J.R.: Thanks for the comment. I would have to say that your comment is one of the most congenial of Oneness people who have replied.
I would have to disagree with you. The Oneness position only claims that it holds to the authority given by the original apostles. As a former Oneness Pentecostal and after many conversations with many Oneness that have continued even until now, I can safely say that the claim is based on an idea of what the apostles are perceived to have held rather than what the apostles actually held to. Part of the problem is that the view of Oneness sees first century Judaism as being uniform. Studies in Judaism show that this isn’t the case and that the Jews actually believed different things about God and His Memra (the Logos or Word). One can even find strands of Judaism that believed that the Memra existed distinctly from God and was also God (sounds quite familiar, doesn’t it?). These Jews, by the way, didn’t attempt to explain it but simply left it as a mystery.
My caution against relying on 2 Timothy 3:16 is that it has a textual variant that reads either “who was manifested in the flesh” (referring to Christ) or “God was manifested in the flesh.” If the first variant is the original one, then it lends weight that Christ pre-existed distinctly from the Father. In any case, a Christian believes both statements, regardless of which variant is the original. Second Timothy 3:16 isn’t something that exclusively supports Oneness Pentecostal belief or doctrine.
To the parties involved in 325 CE, Nicaea actually wasn’t conclusively accepted by all. Lots of people were in protest of it. I don’t rely primarily on Nicaea, but it helps to know that those involved were working from Scripture, from the belief of the apostles and their students (for instance, Polycarp), and from what the church broadly believed about Christ. In formulating Nicaea as a statement of belief about God and Christ, the involved parties were looking to the source. Your statement about the leading of the Holy Spirit is very much applicable here. Also, after Nicaea, the emperorship of the Roman Empire changed hands between the Nicene believers and the Arian believers. If Nicaea was never codified or Arian believers maintained hold of Christendom then things would be much different today. The reason what became to be known as orthodox Christianity won out is because of Nicaea and those willing to stand up for it like Athanasius, Anthony the Great, the Cappadocian Fathers, and others.
I would disagree that there are more interpretations and counter views today. There might be more nuances of particular views, but all the major views on God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit continue to be articulated. For example, I see or hear of modalism, adoptionism, tritheism, Arianism, etc. all the time. None of these are new, except the ways of explaining them have been updated.
In answer to your question about the narrow way versus the broad way in Matthew, it might be helpful to look at the context of where that particular section appears as well as the presentation of Jesus in Matthew. The broader context is the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is portrayed as the New Moses (in fact, Jesus is portrayed as the New Moses throughout Matthew, which tells you that Matthew has greatly Jewish audience in mind; this is furthered by the fact that Matthew also points out the inclusivity of Gentiles, which would be shocking to the Jews). Jesus defeats the three temptations in the desert, succeeding where Israel failed in the desert many centuries prior. Then Jesus ascends a mountain, just like Moses, and again like Moses gives them a Law, albeit a new one. This is all very Jewish oriented. So toward the end of the discourse when Jesus speaks of the narrow way and the broad way and the people who find it, it’s quite certain that the number of people who find the narrow way versus the broad way refer to the Jewish people.
Here has always been the way I have approached the study of God, Christ, and the Spirit: begin with Scripture itself; understand the beliefs of the Jewish people, particularly those around the time of Jesus; and examine believers throughout history, focusing on those closest to the apostolic times and then at the church leaders throughout the early centuries. I’ve always used history as a guide to point back to what Scripture has revealed. What I’ve found is an overwhelming unanimity of believers in their belief in and experience with a triune God.
The Godhead-oneness,twoless or triune
Just a small comment gentlemen:I am not very intelligent a lot of the time I have to use a dictionary when writing to get my point across to very studious men as yourselves(you should hear me try to speak.)
So,here goes my take on this subject.1 Cor.2;1-2,and Romans 14:10 kjv (sorry I don’t copy and paste very well either)
When and if we stand before Christ and are judged,for what shall we be judged?When we are told at some point to enter in,will it be because we figured out the formula of the Godhead?There is a great commission to carry out. whether it be the rapture,or death we are closer to it today than we were yesterday.Time is short. Thanks
@ Randy…..How true you are. I sometimes look back at my scribbling and go “looks like a very cold and hungry scribe wrote that”. For as much as that may be an out-of-body for me, for others on this site I would venture to say they have been dumbing down their vernacular to accommodate my understanding. The 1 Cor. 2:1 verse was dead right though. Paul was more concerned with the hearer understanding the gospel than leaving an impression on them. Peter confirmed though that there were letters from Paul that were hard to understand even to the demise of some who wrestled with them. I think our objective ought to be to apply ourselves wholly to understanding the Bible as the Spirit leads, above any other endeavor on earth. For example, if I were lost in a dark cave and happened upon a map written 2,000 yrs ago that was difficult to comprehend, I would meticulously pore over it until it assured my deliverance. Jesus said “ask, knock and seek” and not “sit back, relax and absorb”. I always notice how everyone in Jesus’ day wanted an easy answer like “Just tell us, are you the Messiah?”. He was rarely straightforward with them, b/c when he did they would pick up rocks to make him stop. Then one day even his very apostles asked him “why do you continue to speak in parables?”. His answer was absolutely revealing “b/c it is not for them to understand”. Whoa!! My initial reaction to that was that it was his will that none should perish. Why this is a conflict of scriptures! Why would he conceal truth from the very ones he loves and wants to be saved? Could it be that he didn’t love them? Hmmmm….. We do know however that he was concerned that those who loved him knew who he was. He quizzed his apostles in Mt. 16 about who men said he was and when Philip asked him to show them the Father, he sounded exasperated in my opinion, and said “have I not been so long with you that if you have seen me, you have seen the Father”. Mt. 7 says there will be lots of people who thought they him knew b/c of their supernatural experiences, but didn’t and would receive everlasting punishment. So, in my point of view, a formula of the Godhead is not only essential but the first building block of the church. He told Peter after Peter declared the revelation of who he was, that upon This rock, I will build my church Mt.16:18. Upon what rock? Peter, Petus, small rock, the first Pope? Or the rock or cornerstone of Who He Is Eph 2:20 “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Even the first of his admonitions from Moses in delivering the commandments was “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One”. Our biggest spiritual responsibility lies not in understanding the Bible, but cultivating our own soil as to receive the understanding when it arrives all the while pursuing it. Not one person on the face of this earth has the mental faculties to differentiate between right doctrine and wrong doctrine on his own b/c God was gracious enough not to elect the wisdom of this world to salvation. 1 Cor 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Instead he chose a mysterious type of wisdom that can only be deciphered from the heart 1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory. No, I definitely believe that before we can save anyone else, we have to remove the beams from our own eyes for then can we see clearly to help others.
Before I knew that Jesus was the Savior.I began to read an old Gideon bible.That was all that I had to go by.No one saved me.I later recieved Jesus as my savior,but no one had told me and I had not read about beams and motes. Well, I hadn’t been in it long enough to be concerned with them, as a matter of fact.I was in a half-way house in Osceola,Ar.for two of a four week voluntary stay When,one night I asked God to please help me help myself,in Jesus name Amen. (I remembered to say(in Jesus name amen) the last part came from some past memory) The next morning I walked all over town trying to find a church or a Christian to tell me what I needed to do next.I passed several churches and they were closed and I as I walked around town I didn’t see any Christians either.(I guess they were closed too).I must admit that I was a bit disappointed. So, I went back to the half-way house where I first encountered God and started to read that old ragged Gideon bible.Somehow, it told me that it was time for me to go home that I had recieved all that was there for me.My life was changing
After 34 yrs. and through all my failures and getting back up and runnin’ at it again, I ‘ve learned about beams and motes and a lot of the Christian lingo.I know too that it is God that saves us through Jesus Christ our Lord.
JR,I don’t know what it will take for us christians to begin to dwell together in unity.Maybe we never will like we think we should until That Day. I just want to see sinners saved from hell and given a chance like we were at one time.
Your post brings to mind 4 people or groups of people. Apollos Acts 18:24-28, Saul/Paul Acts 9, Certain disciple of Ephesus Act 19:1-6, and Cornelius in Acts 10. All whose hearts were toward God and had evidence of being shaped by God yet lacked a “more perfect way”. For example, why was it important for Paul to re-baptize the Ephesian disciples if they had already been baptized in the name of him who is coming after John? Wasn’t that essentially the same but just not applying the actual name of Jesus? Today, wouldn’t we consider that splitting hairs and legalism? Yet, it was what stood between them receiving the Holy Ghost. The New World Order is desperately trying to meld all religious beliefs into one perspective, so unity may be closer than we think……..
i am part of a Oneness church and i am so very happy that i found the truth. I was brought up Catholic, I went to church every sunday, went to catholic school for a few years until i was blessed enough to get out of there and go to a public school. I am not knocking the Catholic religion, but what i learned in a pentecostal church in one month was more than i learned in a catholic church in 40 years. i do not see anything cultish about my church. As a matter of fact my pastor tells us to seek for ourselves not to go simply by what he says but to find it ourselves in the bible. don’t change the way you are because we teach it, it has to come from God between him and you and what you feel he wants from you. Like Randy I don’t have elaborate background in all this, and i don’t remember a lot where things are that i’ve read, but i do know that even Jesus made reference to people who rely on theology and not simply allowing the Holy Spirit and what God teaches in his word to lead you. I believe in I Tim 3:16. People try so hard to make God complicated and he is not. He is not a God of confusion only of truth. I have prayed with people to receive the Holy Ghost and if you were involved in the church for a long time you would know we didn’t coax people to receive it, Some people are so open to what God has for them that they receive it right away others do need you to help them with repenting and being able to allow God into their lives, some people have walls built so high they cant let anything break through them. We are not commanding the Holy Ghost to come upon them, some people just don’t know how God wants to give us this gift freely and with love. i have to say with all of these conversations I feel a real love of Jesus from all of you and thats the most important part of all. Tell me one thing. Why when Jesus was talking with Phillip and phillip said show me the father, why did Jesus say, after all this time you still don’t know me. If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the father. I just know that if you see my son you haven’t seen me. God Bless and much love in Christ Jesus
Bro. john dave.i believe in isaiah 9:6, I Tim 3:16, deut 6:4..Search the scriptures more bro and ask for divine intervention in your search of truth….God bless u bro and more power.
Great is He who is opened the understanding of the apostles in order for us not to misguided of any doctrines in which confusing us.I advised to all readers of this site to read carefully for we have only one Judge and we are all the followers of what God’s commanded us.Thanks and God bless…
you have been away from home a few years, remember the people of God love you and you are always welcome home! ONE,FAITH,ONE,LORD and ONE BAPTISM–LOVE MAMA!
All I have to say is that the bible is right and somebody is wrong! THE BROAD WAY LEADS TO DESTRUCTION! If God says the evidence of a person being saved is speaking in tongues, then no matter what anyone else says thats what has to be done! Eternity is too long to be wrong! Read scriptures an ask God for the interpretation. Lean not to your own understanding
I am a UPC oneness believer from Jamaica WI and I say if GOD does not reveal his truth to you you wont understand GOD bless
Hi,
I attend a Trinitarian Pentecostal church in Australia; I would like to say a few things on this matter if I may.
Firstly, I think the behaviour of both sides has been very poor. Please notice that I have said both sides.
Looking at one side of the coin, the side where I sit. Over the years I have heard all sorts of incorrect statements spoken in our churches concerning what Oneness people believe about GOD.
Looking back at this, I wonder why these statements have never been corrected publically?
I have lost count how many times I have heard from the front of the church incorrectly saying “ they believe the Son is the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit”
It’s been over 20 years since Jimmy Swaggart fabricate their beliefs in his booklets and in the Evangel , our pastors that have used this material widely, to my knowledge not one of them have ever publically renounced the material , though now fully aware of their incorrect content.
Both sides need to pull their heads in.
Peter
If I might add to the commentary above — Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6) “I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep.” (John 10:11) “I am the door — if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” (John 10:9) “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” (John 11:25) “For there is one mediator between God and man — the man Christ Jesus.” (I Timothy 2:5)
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15) “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (II Corinthians 5:21) All these Bible verses (and many more) point to the one and only Lord — Jesus as the author and finisher of our salvation. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father,and was manifested unto us;)” (I John 1:1-2)
The scriptures further state that when we ask Jesus to become Lord in our lives, we are renewed. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name … that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” (Philippians 2:5-11)
But if our searching the scriptures began and stopped at these verses alone, then we miss the greatest love story ever told. That is, our heavenly Father — the same God who created man and woman in the beginning — the same “I am the Lord thy God — beside Me there is no Saviour” in the old covenant — willingly became our Saviour. Indeed, God willingly took on a sin-prone body (but knowing no sin) and shed His precious holy spirit blood on the cross of Calvary so that you and I can be forgiven once and for all, And the plan of salvation was decided even before the world was shaped. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God — and this same Word that was God became flesh. (John 1:1-18) If it were any other way, then it begs the question — if not on the cross, when did God — our heavenly Father — become our Saviour?
“Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but Me: for there is no Saviour beside Me” (Hosea 13:4).
Listen to the promise that God spoke to Abraham. He said that in him and in his seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. “And I will establish my covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.: (Genesis 17:7)
Note that the scriptures state – in Abraham’s SEED – singular. God did not say SEEDS. Indeed, God said SEED. Abraham had eight sons of which none were a blessing to mankind. But God was speaking of a Holy Spirit SEED “a new blood line” that was to be implanted into Abraham, and that implanted SEED was to pass through Abraham into Isaac. In turn, the bloodline continued into Jacob UNTIL the appointed time when the SEED of promise in which ALL NATIONS of the earth would/could be blessed should come forth. That promised SEED was JESUS the Christ who is the SEED of the Holy Spirit Of God. The Prince of Peace.
“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)
Moreover, in accord with the written Word, we know that Jesus IS the Word of God. We see this in Biblical example after example — when God decided within Himself, to show Himself in a created form. The same “in the beginning God” — He decided to reveal Himself – revealed by the written Word. This is why, in this context, Jesus is and was the beginning of the creation of God. Therefore, Adam is an earthly image of Jesus because Jesus came forth from the bosom of God. He did not come forth as another person but as God Himself in human form. The only “begotten” Son. (John 3:16)
This is why Thomas said, “My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28) As born again believers, we no longer serve an “unknown” god but rather, like the disciples, we know in whom we believe and seek His righteousness. This means that in every thing we do in word or deed, we do all in the name of Jesus. (Collosians 3:17) One Lord, one faith, one baptism. (Ephesians 4:5)
Therefore, the Bible is very clear on the Godhead. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (I Timothy 3:16) The Bible is also clear on baptism which Peter standing with the eleven responded when asked, “What must we do to be saved?” (Acts 2:38-42).
Unfortunately, in this day and age, too many people prefer to become “church-ed” within some man-made traditional religion rather than aligning their doctrinal beliefs with the written Word. Again, unfortunately, too many are willing to accept church creeds, doctrinal statements and dogma as stated (like Matthew 28:19 that was changed by the Roman Catholic church in 385 AD) without searching the scriptural record for themselves. This is where the disconnect between churches and the true gospel of Jesus Christ creates confusion. But my God is not the author of confusion. He laid the foundation for us — if we would only seek Him and His righteousness. His kingdom. Thank you Jesus! Let him that have ears to hear, hear. Blessings in Jesus’ name!
How do you respond to John 17:1-3? Where it says that the Father is the only God? I realize one can mean 1 in number and one in unity. However, when I read John 17:3, it clears it up for me. I realize that a lot of the scripture can be confusing, and sometimes due to the confusing language I can lean towards 2 distinct persons. However, the moment I accept 3 persons, I have to accept up to 13 (the 7 spirits, Wisdom in Proverbs 8, Melchezidek, and the Angel of the Lord). So I can say the Trinitarian doctrine has never really held any merit to me, because the weak proof for 3 if applied throughout scripture implies more than 3. Wouldn’t 12 or 7 be a much more biblical number than 3?
I feel you JR in a lot of your comments about oneness. However, I really don’t think the trinitarian doctrine is upheld when you take an honest look at the Bible. Two is arguable, more than 3 is also arguable, but 3 is not.
How do you respond to John 17:1-3? Where it says that the Father is the only God? I realize one can mean 1 in number and one in unity. However, when I read John 17:3, it clears it up for me. I realize that a lot of the scripture can be confusing, and sometimes due to the confusing language I can lean towards 2 distinct persons. However, the moment I accept 3 persons, I have to accept up to 13 (the 7 spirits, Wisdom in Proverbs 8, Melchezidek, and the Angel of the Lord). So I can say the Trinitarian doctrine has never really held any merit to me, because the weak proof for 3 if applied throughout scripture implies more than 3. Wouldn’t 12 or 7 be a much more biblical number than 3?
I feel you JR in a lot of your comments about oneness. However, I really don’t think the trinitarian doctrine is upheld when you take an honest look at the Bible. Two is arguable, more than 3 is also arguable, but 3 is not.
Wow! I am amazed at the misunderstanding of the true doctrine of oneness. The oneness doctrine didn’t start with R.E. McAlister, Cook, Ewart, G.T. Haywood, or any other man who is born of woman. GOD himself has revealed through the Holy scriptures that he is ONE. Over and over again the scriptures declare God to be ONE. “For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour” (Isaiah 43: 3). Notice the scripture says “Holy One” not “Holy Three,” nor “Holy Trinity.” We have erred from the scriptures and have sought to elevate the declarations of councils above the Word of God. Again the scripture says, “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43: 11). As you know Jesus is the Savior of the world, yet the prophet Isaiah denotes the LORD (God) as the savior. This in essence declares that Jesus is God our savior. “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2: 13). The true oneness apostolic/Pentecostal churches are not cults, sects, or heretics. Are there those who go over board in some of their personal beliefs? Absolutely! Yet this does not incriminate all oneness preachers or believers who stand firm on the Holy scriptures. Does the Bible command people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ? Of course it does, (Acts 2: 38, Acts 8: 16, Acts 10: 48, Acts 19: 5, and Acts 22: 16). Does the Bible insist we receive the Holy Ghost likewise in order to be saved? Absolutely! Read (Acts 2: 4, Acts 8: 17, Acts 10: 45,46, and Acts 19: 6). Close inspection of the scriptures does indicate that speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance is the initial evidence of someone receiving the baptism or infilling of the Holy Ghost. All of the unnecessary titles as Modalism, Sabellianism, Praxeanism, and others does not override the truth of the scriptures.
A sincere hearted person will have to come to the conclusion that the Holy Bible doesn’t promote a Trinity as was taught by Tertullian in the second century. Finding fault in the oneness churches don’t change the truth of the Word of God.
What some consider as legalism when it comes to the outward adorning of both men and women in the oneness apostolic/Pentecostal churches, we see as obedience to the scriptures which commands God’s people to dress in modest apparel. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided (braided) hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Timothy 2: 9,10). Why is there something wrong with people who desire to follow the Holy scriptures as close as we possibly can? God’s people are a called out people, who are to be different and make a difference in a sinful world. Therefore I hope that those who don’t truly understand the oneness churches or our beliefs, sincerely seek God for a better understanding of the Holy scriptures before you condemn or malign those you don’t truly understand.
JD dear, this is your greatest error ” BUY THE TRUTH AND SELL IT NOT ” says the word of God, I feel very sad reading about you telling how you left the UPC to be RE-UNITED to Catholic church again. the scripture stands where it says “A dog return to its vomit..”, “…do not put a ring in the nose of a swine, he know not is value..”, Judas after sitting with Jesus on the table the went to do the contrary. food for thought.
my brother I knew not a church apart from UPC that will help you to live holy for God,
Those people are feeling happy you left the UPC not because you have done the right things its because they themselves don’t have the love to live holy for God, to separate from the world, I don’t understand why these people hates the UPC’s , WHY? :
because we believe in one God?
because we live holy for God?
because we upheld the Name of Jesus?
because we baptize in JESUS Name?
because we preached Acts 2:38,Repentance, Baptism, infilling of the Holy Ghost?
Arise from your slumber quickly.
Folks,
I haven’t accused the Oneness churches of being a cult or that Oneness people aren’t saved. If anything, I tend to see Oneness people accusing others of not being saved or of not being part of the church. Yes, I agree that there are those in broader Christianity who are questionable as to their Christian-ness but they appear to be the minority.
As I haven’t really seen any of the recent comments here give a reasonable defense of Oneness, I still don’t find any reason to return. If you’d like to continue interaction, then you can visit these posts and comment only if you are willing to read and have a conversation. I’ll let it be known that I’m not going to convert or revert back to Oneness any time soon so you can hold off on the conversion comments.
http://nearemmaus.com/2013/03/29/the-trinity-in-jewish-times/
http://nearemmaus.com/2013/04/14/a-dialogue-between-a-catholic-and-an-evangelical-why-i-am-a-catholic-pt-1b/
Most of these comments are polemical, drive-by attempts at rhetorical persuasion. Apparently, some OPs think the same scare tactics that keep them around should work on others.
Agreed. My life now outside of Oneness Pentecostalism is just as rich as, if not more rich than, it was in it.
Mine is richer, no doubt about it.
Just a few quick responses.
JR: Some of the people in Acts, like Cornelius and his household, received the Holy Spirit before they were ever baptized in Jesus’ name what you’ve said doesn’t quite work. I myself spoke in tongues as a Catholic before I had come into the UPCI. There are thousands of others baptized according to Matthew 28:19 who have spoken in tongues, the classical Pentecostal definition of having been baptized by the Spirit, and remain baptized under that “formula.”
Peter: True, some Trinitarians mischaracterize Oneness but I have found too often it goes the other way around.
Janice: All the manuscripts of Matthew have Matthew 28:19 exactly as you find in your Bible. The idea that Matthew 28:19 was somehow changed is sorely lacking in evidence.
RQ: I don’t respond to any Bible verses. I believe them and let them be. In response to you, I’d say take a look at John 17:5 where Jesus is clear that He was with the Father and had glory with Him before the foundation of the world. Even John 17:3 makes a clear distinction between the Father and the Son so that you cannot mistake one for the other. I believe in God’s threeness because that’s what I find in the Bible.
D.E. Hall: I’m well acquainted with what Oneness believes about the Godhead. Perhaps you would do well learning about first-century, pre-Christian Judaism and what Jews at that time believed about the Godhead. http://nearemmaus.com/2013/03/29/the-trinity-in-jewish-times/
Steven A.: I know lots of Trinitarians who are concerned about holiness.
Finally, thanks to everyone in the recent year who responded with a good spirit.
Brian: But you threw up in a Oneness church so that should prove everything everyone here has been saying. 😉
Threw up or grew up? lol
The first one haha.
John Dave, Hello, it has been a while. I looked back over my comments and obviously missed what you were replying to concerning speaking in tongues. I am very aware of the Gentile conversion in Acts 10 where they were filled with the Spirit before baptism. I beleive that there will be folks in hell that were filled with the Spirit at one time right alongside Ananias and Saphira and I am trying really hard not to be one of them.
JohnDave,
Even if John 17:5 can be interpretted the way you are interprettinf it, 17:3 forces the Son to not be God. There is a conflict in the Bible. Either verse 3 is incorrect or your interpretation is incorrect. The Bible doesn’t lie so, you must be incorrect 🙂
If your interpretation is correct, then Jesus is speaking as God and in John 17:11, when we are born again we are also God, so by your logic he no longer is just 3 but millions.
…Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. John 17:11
If what you say is correct…then by Rev 13:8 . Jesus wasn’t slain at the cross but , Jesus the Man ( or lamb) was slain at the foundation of the world. The Christ wasn’t born by Mary, the Man existed before the world.
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8
I state Man because God cannot die, only a man can. Therefore any reference to Lamb must only apply to the Man …not the Word. The Word can not be slain.
If you read the Bible and try to apply human logic, then you will get it wrong. Clearly, from the foundation of the world, God knew the Christ would redeem us. And to be clear the Son is distinct from the Father. The Son is the Christ, the human manifestation of God.
Doesn’t this come down to a political decision? During the Nicene Council of 325, both sides use this as a foundation meeting for church doctrine. Does it matter how an individual sees God? All I know is from reading the Bible a few times through, and attending Georgetown U I’ve concluded that “Thy Word is Truth” according to John 17.
J.R.: Keep on keeping on.
quintar: I didn’t make any statements that said the Son wasn’t God. If the Son possessed glory with the Father before the foundation of the world then He must have shared in the Father’s glory. Because God’s glory is given to no other the Son must be as the Father is God. However, the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. As I mentioned I just let the Bible speak for itself. I’ve had trouble following the interpretation you’ve given because it’s convoluted and no one I’ve spoken with who has the same position could ever make it make sense. The Oneness people who have positions that make some sense of the Bible have long abandoned a position such as yours.
jeff: Nicaea is interesting because even though there was a political element to it, the council was quite serious in stating the position of the church. From what I can tell, Oneness wasn’t even a dominant position because the whole focus was whether the Son was created or eternal. No one was debating whether the Father became the Son. Arianism was easy to derive from simply reading the Bible; that is why it became such a large movement and that is why it still exists today. That isn’t to say that I don’t believe Oneness people aren’t saved or don’t have some kind of relationship with God, but the reason I’m not a part of the movement is its large exclusiveness that easily leads the position that most of Christianity isn’t saved, similar to what Arians these days are saying.
quintar: My last comment was done a little quickly because I had to run. To respond to your twisting of my statement, my logic doesn’t allow me to see more than a threeness to the one God because what I find in the Bible is that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don’t think anyone who reads John 17 with all honesty can say that God becomes millions based on Jesus’ prayer. The oneness that Jesus speaks of has to do with indwelling, not God being split up into millions or anything else. I’ve found the most Oneness resort to trying to carry other’s logic to a place that no one would ever go to avoid dealing with the difficulties that the Bible presents to their own Oneness interpretation.
It should be noted that it is the same Church that formulated the Creeds and established/recognized the Canon, so if we’re going to say the Creeds are the mere result of political power and that the Spirit was not guiding the Church in their formation than we ought to be consistent and say the same thing of the Canon, which leaves us with mere historicism as a theological foundation.
JohnDave,
There are others that are God other than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and they are distinct. There is the Angel of the Lord, Melchezidek and Wisdom (prov 8) and the Seven Spirits. If you take the oneness view , its just God. If you take a trinitarian view… no where in the Bible does it say these are any of the original 3. Therefore if God is a plurality he is more than 3.
Now if you add Jesus prayer in John 17:11, we are God too. Why will Jesus statement in John 10:30 be used to prove God’s plurality but a similar statement in John 17:11 that implies we are God too not be okay?
Look, I am simply using your flawed logic and applying it across the Bible to show that God can be at least 13 and up to millions. I do think there was a religion early on that believed we were God, same as Jesus was, but I am not fully sure of that.
I dont like the exclusiveness of oneness anymore than you do, I believe that ultimately it is God’s choice to decide who is saved and who is not. That being stated, God is one in number not in unity…they are right about that. If you want to keep a plurality view of God and want to ignore the other “persons” mentioned in the Bible or explain it away go ahead… but you no longer are reading the Bible but trying to apply your logic to it. The trinity is a doctrine the Bible doesnt defend unless you actually dont read the Bible and just read parts of it.
The reason I mentioned rev 13:8 is because it says christ was slain at the foundation of the world. Its a way of speaking that is okay for God to do because he is omnicient. However if you take it literally, then Jesus wasnt crucified at the cross but at the foundation of the world. We all know that isnt true so we apply the correct logic, which is God knew his salvation plan from the beginning. However, when that logic isnt convenient the literal interpretation is used (john 17:5). That isnt honest interpretation of the Bible.
The title of the article made me think you were going to explain how that God is not exclusively one but is instead made up of three.