PDA

View Full Version : The Trinity



poochie
Jan 27th 2009, 05:40 PM
A certain OneNess Pentecostal has decided as of late to really be on a rampage to change my mind as he strongly despises my article on the cult on my website. While my article is good for a web based article (not a book) I realize that my article on the Trinity is not very exhaustive. Anyone know of any good and quality web articles on the Trinity? Thanks..

Butch5
Jan 27th 2009, 11:52 PM
A certain OneNess Pentecostal has decided as of late to really be on a rampage to change my mind as he strongly despises my article on the cult on my website. While my article is good for a web based article (not a book) I realize that my article on the Trinity is not very exhaustive. Anyone know of any good and quality web articles on the Trinity? Thanks..


Here is one site, you need to scroll down to the Oneness section.
http://www.pfrs.org/studies.html

poochie
Jan 28th 2009, 11:59 PM
Here is one site, you need to scroll down to the Oneness section.
http://www.pfrs.org/studies.html

Thanks for the link. However I found what I was looking for and another web ministry gave me permission to copy their article to my site.

shepherdsword
Jan 29th 2009, 12:11 AM
Thanks for the link. However I found what I was looking for and another web ministry gave me permission to copy their article to my site.


Here's some good stuff from some research I have on the subject. If you PM me with an email address I will send you the entire article:

God is Plural yet one:
Elohim (el-o-heem'); is a plural Hebrew noun (gods) from the singular root EL (god). EEM is the plural ending in Hebrew is much like our ‘s’ in English. example: hashamim is the plural noun for heaven. In Genesis 1:1, it reads: “In the beginning God (Elohim, plural) created the Heavens (plural, hash’ ah mi eem) and the earth (singular noun)”.
The bible is full of these examples and it would take more paper than I care to use to make this point. If the name or title for God (Elohim) being in the plural were all we had to go on, we would be left with a plural understanding of the godhead.
The plural noun for God has been generally explained as a “plural of majesty” or “singular of intensity.” But all the related ancient near east cultures use the singular form "El" without a single case of “Elohim”--there are no ancient near east parallels to support this usage. If this plurality-in-unity was a simply initial revelation of the early scriptures, then there would be no better way to say it in the text than Elohim (plural) + one (unity). This initial revelation became fully realized when Jesus came and revealed the presence of the Godhead.
The plural “Elohim” found its ultimate revelation in the plural-unity within the Godhead (Trinity). The doctrine of he Trinity was not clearly seen till after the coming of the Messiah Jesus, where He proclaimed Himself as God. It was then that all the pieces fell together.

Echad
Let us begin by first understanding the Hebrew word for “one.”

Gen 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they (plural) shall become one flesh (Hebrew echad).”

From creation to the cross and from the cross to eternity, God’s purpose in creating man is comprehended in unity and fellowship out of His image. Man and woman were created in His image and they were one flesh. When Adam lost God’s image through rebellion, he lost unity or oneness with God and all of creation came into conflict as a result. There is a common pattern from creation to today: from deception, to pride, to rebellion, to division and conflict.
Within the creation of man (including the woman) we see God creating, after His own image, a plurality and unity.

Genesis 1:5 “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (echad).

This combination of evening and morning comprised the unity of the Day (echad). Again we have plurality and unity combined in the Hebrew word echad.

Ex 26:6, 11-“the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so that the tent would be a unit.” (echad).

2 Samuel 2:25—“many soldiers made themselves into one group.” (echad).

Gen 34:16 –“the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become one (echad) people.”

Num. 13:23
According to the view of the oneness sect, when the spies went over into the land of Canaan they brought back one grape (Heb. eschal echad.) That’s one big grape! Can anyone actually think it was a numerical statement? It means one cluster of grapes. In Ps.133:1, the brethren are to dwell together as one (in unity). 1 Sam.3:17. They are called one company. 1 Kings 7:42, one tribe. 1 Kings 11:13, Israel is called one nation.

god, plural, is one in unity (echad [ekh-awd]). The “SHEMA,” as it is called by the Jewish people, goes like this: “hear (sh’ma) Israel (yisrael) the Lord (Yaweh) our god (elohaynoo), the Lord (Yaweh) is one (echad).. Deut 6:4.

There are two words for “one” in Biblical Hebrew: “echad” (composite unity--one made up of parts) yachiyd (yaw-kheed). The shema is sometimes used by some Jewish people to assert a numerical value for the Godhead to disprove a “Christian” notion of plurality-in-unity. But this verse actually does the opposite. Moses could just as easily used yachiyd instead, which MIGHT have been of some support to their position. But Moses inspired by God uses “echad,” which lends itself to the plurality position. Consider some other passages in which “echad” is used.

A man and a woman who come together in marriage are said to become one [echad] flesh. There are two persons, a man and a woman, coming together in marriage, and the two become one. Obviously, they do not become an absolute one, for they retain their separate personages; however, there is definitely a unity there. No one is tempted two develop a doctrine of married couples where the wife is only the manifestation of the husband; we know better. The Godhead is of such a magnitude that it is inconceivable to completely know God, we can only accept what He wants to reveal through progressive revelation passing through the Old Testament and finally through the New Testament.

The vastness of the Godhead is stated in Job 11:7, “Can you by searching find out God? Can you find out the Almighty unto perfection?
Job 36:26 "Behold, God is great, and we do not know Him; nor can the number of His years be discovered.”

in the verses of Gen 2:24 and 5:1, these verses can serve as an example of plural nouns having a singular recognition:
Gen 5:1, 2, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them (Plural); and blessed them (plural), and called their (plural) name Adam (singular), in the day when they (Plural) were created.

God called Adam and Eve “Adam,” or man, that is what Adam means. Often in the New Testament, the people were referred to as brothers, which included women. Another example is Ezra 3:1, where the whole assembly of Israel was as one [echad]. Although it was comprised of numerous individuals, they were all looked upon as one, obviously a united one. Another example is Ezekiel 37:17, where Ezekiel is told to put two sticks together, and they are combined to become one [echad] stick. These are clear examples of the usage of the word echad in the Hebrew text, which is the very same word used in Deuteronomy 6:4, clearly showing that it is speaking of a compound unity, not an absolute one.

Zech 14:9, “And the LORD shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be--The LORD is one,
And His name one (echad).”

John 17:21, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

In the New Testament there is a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word for one. In Mt.19:5, Jesus quotes Gen.2:24 about a husband and wife becoming one flesh; the word used is hen. Jesus prays that as believers (plural) we will be one (unity) even as (Gr. kathos; according as, just as, even as) he and the Father are one. He did not mean our persons would be merged together in some numerical one, it means a unity corresponding to the plurality/unity of the Godhead. The God of the Old Testament is a united one. The God of the New Testament is a united one. This is what God being one means.
Jn.10:30 "I and my Father are (Gr. esmen, we are) one (Gr. Hen)," this is not numerical; Jesus is not saying he is the Father. They are not one person, but in nature they are unified. It actually reads, "we are one" in Greek the first person plural esmen means ‘we are.’ Again this is a unity in nature, not a numerical statement.
The word one in Greek is Hen and it is a neuter nominative so it refers to one in essence and nature, and kind. That he is deity just as the Father is. He went on to explain he is the Son of God and the Pharisees understood his claim of making himself to be equal with the Father.

Eph. 2:18, 19, " Through Christ we both (Jews and Gentiles) have access to the Father, by one Spirit, Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”

Here we have three distinct persons involved in our relationship to God. Christ the person has made it possible, the Spirit who is the means of access and the Father who is the object. The scripture uses "we" both in relation to the Jews and gentiles, two people groups. These same words are used also of the Son and the Father, showing they are two different persons yet one.

2 Cor.13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

All three are mentioned again making a clear distinction, for what purpose would it serve if they were all the same person?

Any one scripture cannot stand on its own for the belief of any doctrine, but repeated statements in context and word usage leave only one way to interpret the combined biblical text. The word one is clearly and unequivocally used as a plural unity and that is the teaching revealed from Genesis to Revelation. You cannot make it say otherwise without violating what Jesus, the prophets and the apostles clearly and consistently said.

Yachid (One)
the Hebrew language has many plurals without a reference to being one:
Gen 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only (yachiyd) son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
This Hebrew word means an absolute one: yachid. It is used in Genesis 22:2, where it emphasizes Isaac as Abraham's only, unique son. So, if Moses had wanted to emphasize absolute oneness of God, he would have used the term yachid. Deuteronomy 6:4 is therefore an argument in favor of the plurality of the Godhead and, at the same time, it teaches the unity of this plurality of the one God.
(Genesis 22:2,12; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:21; 25:16; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10 ) the emphasis being on the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of "yachid" and chose to use that word in his "Thirteen Articles of Faith" in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use "yachid" in reference to God.'

“Us”
“And God (Plural) said, Let us (Plural) make man in our image, after our (Plural) likeness:.... So God created man in his own (not angles) image, in the image of God (not angels) created he him; male and female created he them.” (Gen 1:26,27)
Did the creation of man include the woman also? Of course! out of man came the woman, out of the man and woman came the family. We have three that are one family.
Some will reference the “Let us” as referring to God speaking of Himself and the angels and not to a plural unity of the Godhead. However, there is no scriptural evidence for that.
We were not made in the combined image of God and angels. It was in “his own image” that we were created. God (Elohim plural) is clearly recognized in the plural as an “us” and an “our”.

“And the LORD (YHVH, singular) God (Elohim, plural) said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,..(Gen 3:22).

“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” (Gen 11:7)

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” (Isa 6:8)
God nowhere initiates His work of calling and choosing with others.

If I seem to be brief in some of these subjects, it only because many of these statements of themselves could be developed in another article. So be patient.

When God brought judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, we find this interesting passage:

“Then the LORD (Jehovah) rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD (Jehovah) out of the heavens.” Gen 19:24 NKJV

In the Old Testament the personal name of God, which is comprised of the four Hebrew letters corresponding to our English letters YHVH and sometimes translated "Jehovah," is applied to two different Persons in one passage. In this passage in Genesis 19:24, Jehovah number one rained fire and brimstone from a second Jehovah out of heaven. The first Jehovah is on earth; He is the One who had been speaking previously to Abraham. Jehovah had appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre, and had warned him about the coming destruction of Sodom. (Gen 18:16-17, “Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way. And the LORD (Jehovah) said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,”) That Jehovah who was on the earth speaking to Abraham, Jehovah number one, was now raining fire and brimstone from Jehovah number two, who was in heaven. The term Jehovah, God’s personal name, is used here of two different Persons located in two different places.

This is just from the book of Genesis. There is a ton of other evidence throughout scripture.

poochie
Jan 29th 2009, 04:28 AM
Appreciate the offer, however I believe the article that I have is sufficient for know. It links to some good books on the subject for more details. I did send the link to this militant Pentecostal and we shall see if he replies. Perhaps he was greatly angered by my article on his cult, and was outraged and so sent me 4-5 attacking emails. Not the first time I have been attacked by a Charismatic/Pentecostal and wont be the last. The worst was when one of them said I was demon possessed.



Here's some good stuff from some research I have on the subject. If you PM me with an email address I will send you the entire article:

God is Plural yet one:
Elohim (el-o-heem'); is a plural Hebrew noun (gods) from the singular root EL (god). EEM is the plural ending in Hebrew is much like our ‘s’ in English. example: hashamim is the plural noun for heaven. In Genesis 1:1, it reads: “In the beginning God (Elohim, plural) created the Heavens (plural, hash’ ah mi eem) and the earth (singular noun)”.
The bible is full of these examples and it would take more paper than I care to use to make this point. If the name or title for God (Elohim) being in the plural were all we had to go on, we would be left with a plural understanding of the godhead.
The plural noun for God has been generally explained as a “plural of majesty” or “singular of intensity.” But all the related ancient near east cultures use the singular form "El" without a single case of “Elohim”--there are no ancient near east parallels to support this usage. If this plurality-in-unity was a simply initial revelation of the early scriptures, then there would be no better way to say it in the text than Elohim (plural) + one (unity). This initial revelation became fully realized when Jesus came and revealed the presence of the Godhead.
The plural “Elohim” found its ultimate revelation in the plural-unity within the Godhead (Trinity). The doctrine of he Trinity was not clearly seen till after the coming of the Messiah Jesus, where He proclaimed Himself as God. It was then that all the pieces fell together.

Echad
Let us begin by first understanding the Hebrew word for “one.”

Gen 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they (plural) shall become one flesh (Hebrew echad).”

From creation to the cross and from the cross to eternity, God’s purpose in creating man is comprehended in unity and fellowship out of His image. Man and woman were created in His image and they were one flesh. When Adam lost God’s image through rebellion, he lost unity or oneness with God and all of creation came into conflict as a result. There is a common pattern from creation to today: from deception, to pride, to rebellion, to division and conflict.
Within the creation of man (including the woman) we see God creating, after His own image, a plurality and unity.

Genesis 1:5 “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (echad).

This combination of evening and morning comprised the unity of the Day (echad). Again we have plurality and unity combined in the Hebrew word echad.

Ex 26:6, 11-“the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so that the tent would be a unit.” (echad).

2 Samuel 2:25—“many soldiers made themselves into one group.” (echad).

Gen 34:16 –“the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become one (echad) people.”

Num. 13:23
According to the view of the oneness sect, when the spies went over into the land of Canaan they brought back one grape (Heb. eschal echad.) That’s one big grape! Can anyone actually think it was a numerical statement? It means one cluster of grapes. In Ps.133:1, the brethren are to dwell together as one (in unity). 1 Sam.3:17. They are called one company. 1 Kings 7:42, one tribe. 1 Kings 11:13, Israel is called one nation.

god, plural, is one in unity (echad [ekh-awd]). The “SHEMA,” as it is called by the Jewish people, goes like this: “hear (sh’ma) Israel (yisrael) the Lord (Yaweh) our god (elohaynoo), the Lord (Yaweh) is one (echad).. Deut 6:4.

There are two words for “one” in Biblical Hebrew: “echad” (composite unity--one made up of parts) yachiyd (yaw-kheed). The shema is sometimes used by some Jewish people to assert a numerical value for the Godhead to disprove a “Christian” notion of plurality-in-unity. But this verse actually does the opposite. Moses could just as easily used yachiyd instead, which MIGHT have been of some support to their position. But Moses inspired by God uses “echad,” which lends itself to the plurality position. Consider some other passages in which “echad” is used.

A man and a woman who come together in marriage are said to become one [echad] flesh. There are two persons, a man and a woman, coming together in marriage, and the two become one. Obviously, they do not become an absolute one, for they retain their separate personages; however, there is definitely a unity there. No one is tempted two develop a doctrine of married couples where the wife is only the manifestation of the husband; we know better. The Godhead is of such a magnitude that it is inconceivable to completely know God, we can only accept what He wants to reveal through progressive revelation passing through the Old Testament and finally through the New Testament.

The vastness of the Godhead is stated in Job 11:7, “Can you by searching find out God? Can you find out the Almighty unto perfection?
Job 36:26 "Behold, God is great, and we do not know Him; nor can the number of His years be discovered.”

in the verses of Gen 2:24 and 5:1, these verses can serve as an example of plural nouns having a singular recognition:
Gen 5:1, 2, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them (Plural); and blessed them (plural), and called their (plural) name Adam (singular), in the day when they (Plural) were created.

God called Adam and Eve “Adam,” or man, that is what Adam means. Often in the New Testament, the people were referred to as brothers, which included women. Another example is Ezra 3:1, where the whole assembly of Israel was as one [echad]. Although it was comprised of numerous individuals, they were all looked upon as one, obviously a united one. Another example is Ezekiel 37:17, where Ezekiel is told to put two sticks together, and they are combined to become one [echad] stick. These are clear examples of the usage of the word echad in the Hebrew text, which is the very same word used in Deuteronomy 6:4, clearly showing that it is speaking of a compound unity, not an absolute one.

Zech 14:9, “And the LORD shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be--The LORD is one,
And His name one (echad).”

John 17:21, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

In the New Testament there is a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word for one. In Mt.19:5, Jesus quotes Gen.2:24 about a husband and wife becoming one flesh; the word used is hen. Jesus prays that as believers (plural) we will be one (unity) even as (Gr. kathos; according as, just as, even as) he and the Father are one. He did not mean our persons would be merged together in some numerical one, it means a unity corresponding to the plurality/unity of the Godhead. The God of the Old Testament is a united one. The God of the New Testament is a united one. This is what God being one means.
Jn.10:30 "I and my Father are (Gr. esmen, we are) one (Gr. Hen)," this is not numerical; Jesus is not saying he is the Father. They are not one person, but in nature they are unified. It actually reads, "we are one" in Greek the first person plural esmen means ‘we are.’ Again this is a unity in nature, not a numerical statement.
The word one in Greek is Hen and it is a neuter nominative so it refers to one in essence and nature, and kind. That he is deity just as the Father is. He went on to explain he is the Son of God and the Pharisees understood his claim of making himself to be equal with the Father.

Eph. 2:18, 19, " Through Christ we both (Jews and Gentiles) have access to the Father, by one Spirit, Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”

Here we have three distinct persons involved in our relationship to God. Christ the person has made it possible, the Spirit who is the means of access and the Father who is the object. The scripture uses "we" both in relation to the Jews and gentiles, two people groups. These same words are used also of the Son and the Father, showing they are two different persons yet one.

2 Cor.13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

All three are mentioned again making a clear distinction, for what purpose would it serve if they were all the same person?

Any one scripture cannot stand on its own for the belief of any doctrine, but repeated statements in context and word usage leave only one way to interpret the combined biblical text. The word one is clearly and unequivocally used as a plural unity and that is the teaching revealed from Genesis to Revelation. You cannot make it say otherwise without violating what Jesus, the prophets and the apostles clearly and consistently said.

Yachid (One)
the Hebrew language has many plurals without a reference to being one:
Gen 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only (yachiyd) son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
This Hebrew word means an absolute one: yachid. It is used in Genesis 22:2, where it emphasizes Isaac as Abraham's only, unique son. So, if Moses had wanted to emphasize absolute oneness of God, he would have used the term yachid. Deuteronomy 6:4 is therefore an argument in favor of the plurality of the Godhead and, at the same time, it teaches the unity of this plurality of the one God.
(Genesis 22:2,12; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:21; 25:16; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10 ) the emphasis being on the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of "yachid" and chose to use that word in his "Thirteen Articles of Faith" in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use "yachid" in reference to God.'

“Us”
“And God (Plural) said, Let us (Plural) make man in our image, after our (Plural) likeness:.... So God created man in his own (not angles) image, in the image of God (not angels) created he him; male and female created he them.” (Gen 1:26,27)
Did the creation of man include the woman also? Of course! out of man came the woman, out of the man and woman came the family. We have three that are one family.
Some will reference the “Let us” as referring to God speaking of Himself and the angels and not to a plural unity of the Godhead. However, there is no scriptural evidence for that.
We were not made in the combined image of God and angels. It was in “his own image” that we were created. God (Elohim plural) is clearly recognized in the plural as an “us” and an “our”.

“And the LORD (YHVH, singular) God (Elohim, plural) said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,..(Gen 3:22).

“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” (Gen 11:7)

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” (Isa 6:8)
God nowhere initiates His work of calling and choosing with others.

If I seem to be brief in some of these subjects, it only because many of these statements of themselves could be developed in another article. So be patient.

When God brought judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, we find this interesting passage:

“Then the LORD (Jehovah) rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD (Jehovah) out of the heavens.” Gen 19:24 NKJV

In the Old Testament the personal name of God, which is comprised of the four Hebrew letters corresponding to our English letters YHVH and sometimes translated "Jehovah," is applied to two different Persons in one passage. In this passage in Genesis 19:24, Jehovah number one rained fire and brimstone from a second Jehovah out of heaven. The first Jehovah is on earth; He is the One who had been speaking previously to Abraham. Jehovah had appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre, and had warned him about the coming destruction of Sodom. (Gen 18:16-17, “Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way. And the LORD (Jehovah) said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,”) That Jehovah who was on the earth speaking to Abraham, Jehovah number one, was now raining fire and brimstone from Jehovah number two, who was in heaven. The term Jehovah, God’s personal name, is used here of two different Persons located in two different places.

This is just from the book of Genesis. There is a ton of other evidence throughout scripture.

shepherdsword
Jan 29th 2009, 06:57 AM
Appreciate the offer, however I believe the article that I have is sufficient for know. It links to some good books on the subject for more details. I did send the link to this militant Pentecostal and we shall see if he replies. Perhaps he was greatly angered by my article on his cult, and was outraged and so sent me 4-5 attacking emails. Not the first time I have been attacked by a Charismatic/Pentecostal and wont be the last. The worst was when one of them said I was demon possessed.


I don't consider myself Pentecostal or Charismatic. However, I do believe that all of the Gifts of the Spirit are in operation in the Church today. I understand that there is abuse of the gifts and false representation of them on a large scale today. I can understand why many are turned off by a mention of them. Just be sure not to throw the baby out with the bath water. It is also true that the "Oneness" doctrine first came to prominence at a N. carolina revival in 1896 lead by Mary Woodworth Etter. She strongly opposed it but it was a MAN who ended up propagating the deception were it blew up full force in 1912.( I thought it was the women who were supposed to be decieved?)

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2009, 01:33 PM
Appreciate the offer, however I believe the article that I have is sufficient for know. It links to some good books on the subject for more details. I did send the link to this militant Pentecostal and we shall see if he replies. Perhaps he was greatly angered by my article on his cult, and was outraged and so sent me 4-5 attacking emails. Not the first time I have been attacked by a Charismatic/Pentecostal and wont be the last. The worst was when one of them said I was demon possessed.
Why do you consider him a cult? What parameter do you use to gauge such as that?

poochie
Jan 29th 2009, 05:37 PM
Why do you consider him a cult? What parameter do you use to gauge such as that?

He denies the Trinity of God which is a Fundamental of the Christian faith. he also claimed to OneNess theology which is a theology of devils. The Bible teaches in the last days that there will be doctrines taught by devils.

1 Tim 4:1 (KJV)

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2009, 07:43 PM
It depends on how he denies the Trinity. Whether a person agrees with the standard fare version of the Trinity isn't an issue that would make someone a "cult." You could say a heretic (by definition that they disagree with you) or even a false teacher (again by that same definition). But not a cult. If they deny the deity of Christ then again... most definitely a false teacher and even antiChrist... but not really a cult. Folks toss that word around way too freely. There are folks that don't agree with the Trinity teaching yet they still believe and teach the deity of Christ.

BroRog
Jan 29th 2009, 08:02 PM
It depends on how he denies the Trinity. Whether a person agrees with the standard fare version of the Trinity isn't an issue that would make someone a "cult." You could say a heretic (by definition that they disagree with you) or even a false teacher (again by that same definition). But not a cult. If they deny the deity of Christ then again... most definitely a false teacher and even antiChrist... but not really a cult. Folks toss that word around way too freely. There are folks that don't agree with the Trinity teaching yet they still believe and teach the deity of Christ.

Not being critical or trying to be contrary. But I was wondering if perhaps John's statement about "antiChrist" pertained to those who denied that Jesus was a human being, not those who denied his deity.

Just wondering what you think.

After all, the antiChrist denies that Jesus came in the flesh, which seems to be analogous to a denial of the incarnation. In John's gospel he asserts that the Logos became flesh. It seems to me that the antichrist will deny that the Logos became flesh, but remained deified.

Isn't that right, or am I missing something?

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2009, 10:11 PM
Not being critical or trying to be contrary. But I was wondering if perhaps John's statement about "antiChrist" pertained to those who denied that Jesus was a human being, not those who denied his deity.

Just wondering what you think.

After all, the antiChrist denies that Jesus came in the flesh, which seems to be analogous to a denial of the incarnation. In John's gospel he asserts that the Logos became flesh. It seems to me that the antichrist will deny that the Logos became flesh, but remained deified.

Isn't that right, or am I missing something?
I certanly wouldn't argue that but again one has to determine which "Oneness" we're talking about. There are about as many camps in the Oneness group as there are in about all other denominations. It's getting more difficult to say who's what and what's who any longer. Safe to say... best just to say it's getting nuttier and nuttier! :rolleyes:

I do think that when they go as far as to deny the deity of Christ then my opinion is that they don't even know the real Christ and whatever Christ they are preaching isn't "THE" Christ therefore they would be antichrist... but that is my opinion on that. Even still... I'd not label them a cult. A false teacher yes most definitely. Anti-Christ... I'd say so but would make that as my opinion. Cult... nah. That isn't enough to brand them such... not that alone anyway.

Brother Mark
Jan 29th 2009, 10:14 PM
He denies the Trinity of God which is a Fundamental of the Christian faith. he also claimed to OneNess theology which is a theology of devils. The Bible teaches in the last days that there will be doctrines taught by devils.

1 Tim 4:1 (KJV)

Poochie, isn't all false doctrine a doctrine of devils? Would that make preaching against going to movies, pants, inappropriate separate also a doctrine of devils? Does that mean those that teach that are a cult?

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2009, 10:18 PM
That's the thing Mark. It's all a matter of opionion of the person hollering cult. Myself... oneness isn't as big an issue with me as it is apparently with scores of others. Most oneness folk don't deny the deity of Christ and that's the biggest issue with me. But even then... I'd not go as far as to yell cult. False... yes.

Brother Mark
Jan 29th 2009, 10:20 PM
We are in agreement PP. Cult doesn't fit. Oneness folks believe in Jesus as God. They believe in God the Father as God. They believe in God the Holy Spirit as God. They worship Christ as Lord and Savior. Are they wrong in their belief system about the Trinity? I believe so, but I would not label them a cult because of it.

I know some mighty men of God that believe in modalism. As best I can tell, that is pretty much what many Oneness folks believe too.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2009, 10:23 PM
We are in agreement PP. Cult doesn't fit. Oneness folks believe in Jesus as God. They believe in God the Father as God. They believe in God the Holy Spirit as God. They worship Christ as Lord and Savior. Are they wrong in their belief system about the Trinity? I believe so, but I would not label them a cult because of it.

I know some mighty men of God that believe in modalism. As best I can tell, that is pretty much what many Oneness folks believe too.
Most do... yeah. Just a few fringe groups out there that don't and they really are fewer now. Most of those guys have gone on over to Sacred Names doctrine and are totally out there now as opposed to somewhat out there. :lol:

David Taylor
Jan 29th 2009, 10:33 PM
The Lord God in the O.T. said:

Exodus 3:13 "And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."






Jesus told us in the N.T....



"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM."
.

" I AM the bread of life, I AM the bread which came down from heaven, I AM the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever"
.

" I AM the light of the world"
.

" I AM one that bear witness of myself"
.

" I AM from above: I am not of this world. "
.

" I AM the light of the world "
.

" I AM come into this world"
.

" I AM come that they might have life"
.

" I AM the door"
.

" I AM the good shepherd"
.

" I AM the true vine"
.

" I AM the resurrection, and the life"
.

" I AM come a light into the world
.

" I AM the way, the truth, and the life"
.

" I AM in the Father, and the Father in me"
.

"Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I AM."
.

"if ye believe not that I AM he, ye shall die in your sins.



Pretty Clear....Jesus is either a liar and a blasphemer as the Pharisees and Scribes convicted him of and crucified him for....or He is truly the great and holy, divine deity who told Moses I AM.

So any jesus who is not this same Jesus, isn't a saviour or redeemer, and anyone who follows that jesus is still lost in their sins.

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2009, 10:37 PM
The Lord God in the O.T. said:

Exodus 3:13 "And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."






Jesus told us in the N.T....



"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM."
.

" I AM the bread of life, I AM the bread which came down from heaven, I AM the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever"
.

" I AM the light of the world"
.

" I AM one that bear witness of myself"
.

" I AM from above: I am not of this world. "
.

" I AM the light of the world "
.

" I AM come into this world"
.

" I AM come that they might have life"
.

" I AM the door"
.

" I AM the good shepherd"
.

" I AM the true vine"
.

" I AM the resurrection, and the life"
.

" I AM come a light into the world
.

" I AM the way, the truth, and the life"
.

" I AM in the Father, and the Father in me"
.

"Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I AM."
.

"if ye believe not that I AM he, ye shall die in your sins.



Pretty Clear....Jesus is either a liar and a blasphemer as the Pharisees and Scribes convicted him of and crucified him for....or He is truly the great and holy, divine deity who told Moses I AM.

So any jesus who is not this same Jesus, isn't a saviour or redeemer, and anyone who follows that jesus is still lost in their sins.
Okay... but that doesn't make one a "cult". Tis the point. ;)

Brother Mark
Jan 29th 2009, 10:41 PM
So any jesus who is not this same Jesus, isn't a saviour or redeemer, and anyone who follows that jesus is still lost in their sins.

No one is arguing about Jesus not being God. Oneness even says Jesus is God the Father.

But let me ask you a question... Do you know all there is to know about Jesus? All of it? If someone comes preaching a portion about Jesus that you don't know, are they preaching a different Jesus? If you have believed wrongly about Jesus before were you lost because your image of Christ was not 100% correct?

There are things we must have right about Jesus. But to say we must have it all right about Jesus means we are all doomed because he is too big and we all see through a glass darkly.

mcgyver
Jan 29th 2009, 10:44 PM
Hey Poochie,

I'd like to give you a checklist of characteristics of cults/cultish behavior.

This list was originally composed by Michael Langone, PhD; who's specialty lies in the area of cults.

I've found it quite useful in trying to determine whether or not a group is heretical or a cult.

Not all will share all characteristics, yet all will share some similarities.

Anyway, here 'tis:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues*, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.


* Not all speaking in tongues are Christian in practice or origin*

thepenitent
Jan 29th 2009, 10:52 PM
We are in agreement PP. Cult doesn't fit. Oneness folks believe in Jesus as God. They believe in God the Father as God. They believe in God the Holy Spirit as God. They worship Christ as Lord and Savior. Are they wrong in their belief system about the Trinity? I believe so, but I would not label them a cult because of it.

I know some mighty men of God that believe in modalism. As best I can tell, that is pretty much what many Oneness folks believe too.

Modalism, Sabelliunism, or whatever you want to call it, it was pretty much universally condemned as heresy by the early Church fathers going back to Justin Martyr. I wouldn't call it a cult because there are specific characteristics to a cult, one of which is a charismatic personality who is the leader and the cult is usually centered around this person.

mcgyver
Jan 29th 2009, 10:53 PM
(I split this into two posts...)

As an example:

The WBTS (Jehovah's Witnesses) display many of the behaviors of a cult as listed above, to include control of information (can't read anything not approved by the WBTS), "Disfellowshipping", etc., and may (IMO) be termed a cult.

The LDS on the other hand, though displaying some of the characteristics; would be better termed a Non-Christian religion...

Many Oneness Pentecostals would better be termed "heretical" rather than "cultic" or "non-Christian".

There definitely needs to be a definition of terms used...JMO

ProjectPeter
Jan 29th 2009, 11:25 PM
(I split this into two posts...)

As an example:

The WBTS (Jehovah's Witnesses) display many of the behaviors of a cult as listed above, to include control of information (can't read anything not approved by the WBTS), "Disfellowshipping", etc., and may (IMO) be termed a cult.

The LDS on the other hand, though displaying some of the characteristics; would be better termed a Non-Christian religion...

Many Oneness Pentecostals would better be termed "heretical" rather than "cultic" or "non-Christian".

There definitely needs to be a definition of terms used...JMO
Bingo... you get the brass ring. :lol:

poochie
Jan 30th 2009, 12:13 AM
It depends on how he denies the Trinity. Whether a person agrees with the standard fare version of the Trinity isn't an issue that would make someone a "cult." You could say a heretic (by definition that they disagree with you) or even a false teacher (again by that same definition). But not a cult. If they deny the deity of Christ then again... most definitely a false teacher and even antiChrist... but not really a cult. Folks toss that word around way too freely. There are folks that don't agree with the Trinity teaching yet they still believe and teach the deity of Christ.

With all due respect I disagree with you. Someone denies the Trinity and they are teaching a doctrine of devils. Its a Fundamental of the Christian Faith.

poochie
Jan 30th 2009, 12:18 AM
Poochie, isn't all false doctrine a doctrine of devils? Would that make preaching against going to movies, pants, inappropriate separate also a doctrine of devils? Does that mean those that teach that are a cult?

Fundamentalism may be a cult from a anthropological perspective, not from a Theological perspective. As I mentioned in another post I do not preach against the things you mentioned above. The Fundamentalists at my school respect vvirtually all of my theological views and opinionbs, except in secondary areas (Bible translations, worship, movies,etc..). Besides this many are even more dogmatic than me on the issues with New-Evangelicals.

The fact that I am even on this board and fellowship with new-evangelcials and Charismatics would get me booted from a number of Fundamentalist mission agencies whom strongly hold to ecclestiacial and personal separation from the disobedient.

---

It was nice chatting but I better get back to work. I am doing much reading this semester and in my History of Fundamentalism and Evangelicials class am reading some very interesting works. 1 book is 400 pages long and focuses on the failed strategy of Evangelicialism. In another book (almost the same number of pages) the author goes through all the history of the movements, and very clearly defines and differiantes between New-Evangelical, Evangelical and New Fundamentalist (Conservative Evangelicial). Its fun!!

ProjectPeter
Jan 30th 2009, 12:22 AM
With all due respect I disagree with you. Someone denies the Trinity and they are teaching a doctrine of devils. Its a Fundamental of the Christian Faith.


Fundamentalism may be a cult from a anthropological perspective, not from a Theological perspective. As I mentioned in another post I do not preach against the things you mentioned above. The Fundamentalists at my school respect vvirtually all of my theological views and opinionbs, except in secondary areas (Bible translations, worship, movies,etc..). Besides this many are even more dogmatic than me on the issues with New-Evangelicals.

The fact that I am even on this board and fellowship with new-evangelcials and Charismatics would get me booted from a number of Fundamentalist mission agencies whom strongly hold to ecclestiacial and personal separation from the disobedient.

---

It was nice chatting but I better get back to work. I am doing much reading this semester and in my History of Fundamentalism and Evangelicials class am reading some very interesting works. 1 book is 400 pages long and focuses on the failed strategy of Evangelicialism. In another book (almost the same number of pages) the author goes through all the history of the movements, and very clearly defines and differiantes between New-Evangelical, Evangelical and New Fundamentalist (Conservative Evangelicial). Its fun!!And you're missing the point. Certainly you can call it a false teaching. What you will have a more difficult time calling it (rightly and fairly) is a cult. Cult is the word you use... too freely in all honesty.

Brother Mark
Jan 30th 2009, 12:27 AM
Fundamentalism may be a cult from a anthropological perspective, not from a Theological perspective. As I mentioned in another post I do not preach against the things you mentioned above. The Fundamentalists at my school respect vvirtually all of my theological views and opinionbs, except in secondary areas (Bible translations, worship, movies,etc..). Besides this many are even more dogmatic than me on the issues with New-Evangelicals.

Is it theologically correct to teach these things? That's my point. If someone teaches doctrines of devils, are they a cult? For instance, if you disagree with those doctrines, then you are saying they are false doctrines. All lies and false teachings come from the father of lies, right?


The fact that I am even on this board and fellowship with new-evangelcials and Charismatics would get me booted from a number of Fundamentalist mission agencies whom strongly hold to ecclestiacial and personal separation from the disobedient.

I know Poochie. I was just using your "denomination" as an example. They teach things that in your opinion is wrong. Does that make them a cult? No.

Glad you are having fun with your studies.

shepherdsword
Jan 30th 2009, 12:50 AM
It depends on how he denies the Trinity. Whether a person agrees with the standard fare version of the Trinity isn't an issue that would make someone a "cult." You could say a heretic (by definition that they disagree with you) or even a false teacher (again by that same definition). But not a cult. If they deny the deity of Christ then again... most definitely a false teacher and even antiChrist... but not really a cult. Folks toss that word around way too freely. There are folks that don't agree with the Trinity teaching yet they still believe and teach the deity of Christ.

I was "saved" on Ft Lauderdale beach in 1982. I just started preaching the word on the street corners. I meet this guy who said I didn't have the baptism in the Holy Spirit(because I didn't speak in tongues at that time) so I wasn't really saved. This scared me so I went with him to his church. They baptized me in the name of Jesus and all of that( It was a oneness church since defunct called 'Apostolic Lighthouse") I still didn't speak in tongues though. This caused a real problem with my perspective of God's intentions for me until I was baptized in the Holy Spirit by his sovereign act. I guess I am rambling but I said that to say this, most churches that hold the oneness doctrine also say you cannot be saved unless you speak in tongues. While I do speak in tongues now and have other Gifts from the Spirit , I believe the evidence for salvation is the fruit of the Spirit,not the gifts. I also believe the doctrine of the Trinity is critical to understanding the fellowship we have been brought into with God. The fellowship of the Trinity. This is what the angels desire to look into it is sheer conjecture but some say it is why Lucifer fell. He was jealous when God announced he would creat a being that he could fellowship with on that level.
*note* I said "fellowship" and not the we would be "gods" like some teach.
Big difference