Trinity vs. Oneness

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Are you Trinitarian, or Sabellian (Oneness, usually, Oneness Pentecostal)?

  • Trinitarian

    Votes: 45 77.6%
  • Sabellion

    Votes: 6 10.3%
  • What's the difference?

    Votes: 7 12.1%

  • Total voters
    58
Mar 2, 2010
537
3
0
Sigh* Phil. I don't follow the creeds because I don't follow any man as a definitive authority. Creeds are problematic because they are assigned as much authority as the scriptures. People like yourself are certain that they are infallible. If they only said what scripture clearly says, why would we need them? Instead, creeds represent interpretations encoded in memorable phrases and used to indoctrinate the generations that follow.

The men who met to settle matters of doctrine clearly were not infallible. Almost all of them were in the minority on at least some of the foundational issues of christianity, whether the two natures of Christ, the eternality of Christ, the nature of the godhead, or many others. A large number of the church fathers believed you had to be baptized to be saved. I doubt you agree.

A large number of these same men were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Some were even philosophers before knowing Christ. Many of them still did not have all of the texts that now make up our NT. Many more used other books that were later determined not to be canonical. Do you think their doctrine was not influenced by these other texts?

The earliest councils were under significant pressure from Rome to be unified and produce unified doctrine, and many compromised in order to reach a consensus.

At one point Arius himself was declared a heretic, then later declared not to be a heretic, and still later again declared a heretic. On the same issues.

Your point about councils being a response to the reality of there being more than one "Christianity" is well taken. You seem to have a lot of faith that the "right Christianity" always prevailed. When I compare the prevailing Christianity with scripture, I tend to disagree.

In fact, among other things I tend to disagree with prevailing Christianity about:

The nature of God (not a trinity)

The nature of Christ (not a second person of a Godhead)

The way of salvation (not based on beliefs, but faith that is active)

The nature of man (not possessing an immortal soul)

The final destination and purpose of the righteous and the unrighteous (a new earth with God's living presence and destruction, respectively)

All in all I believe what I do because my Christianity and theology is much more connected to the Hebrew roots of our faith. What God is doing in the world today is not a parenthesis to His work with Israel (per dispensationalism) nor a new work loosely connected to but displacing the first (per covenantalism). I embrace the OT as my history even though I am not a Jew. I embrace Y'shua as a Torah-observant Jew who instructed His followers in the true way of Torah, the one promised in the New Covenant- written on our hearts rather than tablets of stone. I embrace the great commandments as the way of life, on which the Law and the prophets are based.

With a foundation as deep and rich and wide as the whole history of God's people, I have no need of man made creeds and statements. I need only the fellowship of those who love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength and who love their neighbors in a vital way as themselves. The fellowship of those who embrace the Word of God, who delight in it day and night, who meditate on it and find Life in it. The fellowship of those who view God's commands not as a burden but a joy and a peace.

Yes, I am grafted into the olive tree, the roots of which are the patriarchs, the Law and the prophets. Y'shua is my Messiah and my salvation. He is my God come in the flesh to redeem me, though it was I who had enmity toward Him. He is the God who made everlasting covenants and who is faithful to every one of them.

Help me Lord by Your spirit to love you with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and to find Life in You. Amen!
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,345
2,157
113
This is for everyone to read. if you take the time to read this you will see how this heresy came about, and how it was thrown out as heresy. bare in mind all this happend along time ago. 2nd/3rd century (100/200's). if you read carefully you will see that onesnes pentecostals are nothing new with no new insights except a carbo copy of the heresies gone before.

Monarchianism.

In the 3rd century, under the general name 'monarchianism' the heresies of ebionism and docetism of the 2nd century reappeared. Its basic doctrine that God is one, the sole principle of all existence, was itself an accepted truth of the ethical monotheism of the OT of which christianity was heir.
The term 'monarchia' applied to God had an honourable history. It was used by Plato and Aristotle, with a more religious connotation by Philo. Tertullian, who first gave the name 'monarchianism', to its specific heresy,declares, after examination of its greek and Latin usage, that monarchia has no other meaning than 'single and individual rule'. (against praxeas 3)

The heresies of monarchianism developed naturally as a consequence of their initial interest. Where the theological concern was the stronger, it was found necessary to stress the oneness of God against pagan polytheism. The tendency here was to stress was to exult the unity of God at the expense of Christ's divinity. The result was the elaboration of a new form ebionism, or as now designated 'dynamic monarchianism'. Christ is here conceived as the subject of a special influence or 'dynamis' (Gk.power) of the one monarchia which came to reside in the man Jesus. For introducing this 'God-denying heresy' that 'Christ was a mere (indwelt) man', Theodotus of Byzantine was expelled from the church in Rome c.190.

Its most formidable exponent was, however, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch 260-272. For him only a matter of degree marked the difference between Jesus and other men. Jesus entered progressively into such an ethical relationship with God that he became the more penetrated with the divine ousia (substance) until out of man he became God. Paul was condemned by synod of Antioch in 268. He used the word homoousio to deny that the Son and the Father were distinct beings.

Modalist monarchianism, otherwise designated ptripassianism and Sabellianism, started from a firm conviction of Christs divinity free from all compromising emanationisms and subordinations. However, it called in question the integrity of Christs body, and thus verged towards docetism. It sought to unite the diety of the Son and the oneness of God by declaring the designations Father and Son as modes, or expressions of manisfestation, of the one divine being. The view was first eloberated by Noetus of Smyrna (c 200-25), who 'introduced a heresy from the tenets of Heraclitus' (according to Hippolytus), and was developed bt the anti-montanist Praxeas, who brought in the Holy Spirit as the third mode of representation of the one God and thus did a 'two fold service to the devil at Rome: he put to flight the Paraclete, and the crucified the Father' (Tertullian, Against praxeas 1).


The name of Sebellius (in Rome c 198-220) is now identified with modalist monarchianism. In the interest of strict monotheism Sebellius declared that, although the names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit were biblical, they were attached to the one being. Thus God as a single monad is manifest in three distinct and successive operations of self revealing. The unity of God is thus secured at the expense of the divine triunity of persons within the Godhead. The Son and the Holy Spirit are but temporary modes of self expression of the one Father of all. It was Father who became incarnate as the Son and was crucified (patripassianism - lit. The Father suffering, the Father God dies on the cross).

Origens strong assertion of the Logos as at once eternal with, yet subordinate to the Father gave a decisive blow to monarchianism.

(Dictionary of theology)
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,345
2,157
113
Please read the above distinctive and you will see you follow heresy!
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,345
2,157
113
Yes I read it.

However you are the one, although it does make me chuckel. that does not follow doctrines of men etc etc etc, yet, you basically follow, was has already gone beofre and it really doesnt matter how you dress it up.

What you follow is Heresy, it could not be any plainer to be honest. if you follow heresy, and you truly believe the heresy as you do, that would make you a heretic, intent on deceiving others.


I am certainly not infallible, man ive made more mistakes than you could even dream of. However, I question your theology, infact its not really yours is it, even though you try and suggest it is. you follow the age old heresy.


Blessings

Phil
 
Last edited:

VW

Banned
Dec 22, 2009
4,579
9
0
VW, I will just anser you with this..

And the truth will set you free.

John 8:31-32 "Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
The truth is not words. The truth is a person.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
The truth are persons in this case as one God sharing the same essence and fulfilling different function roles... exactly what scripture teaches. Oneness theology twists scripture to deny who God is and as such was excommunicated. The only thing distinctive about the error, after all this time, really is the harm it continues to do to those who follow and teach it.

The truth is not words. The truth is a person.
 

VW

Banned
Dec 22, 2009
4,579
9
0
The truth are persons in this case as one God sharing the same essence and fulfilling different function roles... exactly what scripture teaches. Oneness theology twists scripture to deny who God is and as such was excommunicated. The only thing distinctive about the error, after all this time, really is the harm it continues to do to those who follow and teach it.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

Jesus
 
Jun 29, 2010
398
0
0
Originally Posted by AgeofKnowledge

The truth are persons in this case as one God sharing the same essence and fulfilling different function roles... exactly what scripture teaches. Oneness theology twists scripture to deny who God is and as such was excommunicated. The only thing distinctive about the error, after all this time, really is the harm it continues to do to those who follow and teach it.
You are the one in error, and your condemnation of others will be turned toward yourself come judgment day.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
Deuteronomy 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that YHWH, He is God; there is no other besides Him"
Deuteronomy 4:39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that YHWH, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other"
1 Kings 8:60 "so that all the peoples of the earth may know that YHWH is God; there is no one else"
Isaiah 45:5 "I am YHWH, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God"
Isaiah 45:18 "For thus says YHWH, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), 'I am YHWH, and there is none else.'"
Isaiah 45:21 "Is it not I, YHWH? And there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me"

The point of all these verses is to demonstrate how clearly scripture states that there is NO ONE other than YHWH who is God. You all say that YHWH is the Father, Y'shua is the Son, and there is the Holy Spirit. You say Y'shua is not YHWH, nor the Holy Spirit. You say YHWH is not the Holy Spirit either. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit, correct? Well, the Father says there is no one besides Him. He doesn't say "there is no one besides God", no, He says "There is no one besides YHWH."

YHWH fashioned for Himself a body that He might be a man like us, that He might be our salvation. YHWH is salvation. Y'shua means exactly that- YHWH is salvation. He made a tabernacle of human flesh and dwelled among us, fully God, and also fully man.
YHWH is a name also applied to Jesus, so I don't believe that is the personal name of the Father.
Obviously, this is your Shibboleth. Nevertheless, here it goes again:
One is an adjective. The question is, one what? For instance you could say I am one. You can say that I am two-hundred and nineteen. You can say I am fifty-two. All of those are perfectly correct, as long as you understand to what I a refering. There is a profound unity in the Godhead that exceed our own personal unity. But these simple truths are found in the Bible.
1. Jesus is God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. God is one.
5. Jesus speaks to the Father as a separate person. He speaks of the Father and the Holy Spirit as separate persons. Every writer in the New Testament save one speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct persons.
So, here are your choices.
1. Deny or ignore one of those truths.
2. View scripture as corrupted and/or inconsistant.
3. Espouse somt form of trinitarianism.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
Sigh* Phil. I don't follow the creeds because I don't follow any man as a definitive authority.
Everyone has a creed. Even you do. What Phil is saying is that you assign authority to your personal creed in opposition to the creeds of virtually every Christian teacher and theologian since the beginning of our faith. You are going to have to better than just to state over and over that God is one.
Creeds are problematic because they are assigned as much authority as the scriptures. People like yourself are certain that they are infallible. If they only said what scripture clearly says, why would we need them? Instead, creeds represent interpretations encoded in memorable phrases and used to indoctrinate the generations that follow.

The men who met to settle matters of doctrine clearly were not infallible. Almost all of them were in the minority on at least some of the foundational issues of christianity, whether the two natures of Christ, the eternality of Christ, the nature of the godhead, or many others. A large number of the church fathers believed you had to be baptized to be saved. I doubt you agree.

A large number of these same men were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Some were even philosophers before knowing Christ. Many of them still did not have all of the texts that now make up our NT. Many more used other books that were later determined not to be canonical. Do you think their doctrine was not influenced by these other texts?
And yours has been influenced as well. You have decided that while some Oneness believers may not be truly in the faith, all who hold trinitarians are not in the faith.

The earliest councils were under significant pressure from Rome to be unified and produce unified doctrine, and many compromised in order to reach a consensus.
The earliest councils were more influenced by the East than the West. The great bishops were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Hippo and Rome.

At one point Arius himself was declared a heretic, then later declared not to be a heretic, and still later again declared a heretic. On the same issues.

Your point about councils being a response to the reality of there being more than one "Christianity" is well taken. You seem to have a lot of faith that the "right Christianity" always prevailed. When I compare the prevailing Christianity with scripture, I tend to disagree.

In fact, among other things I tend to disagree with prevailing Christianity about:

The nature of God (not a trinity)

The nature of Christ (not a second person of a Godhead)

The way of salvation (not based on beliefs, but faith that is active)

The nature of man (not possessing an immortal soul)

The final destination and purpose of the righteous and the unrighteous (a new earth with God's living presence and destruction, respectively)

All in all I believe what I do because my Christianity and theology is much more connected to the Hebrew roots of our faith. What God is doing in the world today is not a parenthesis to His work with Israel (per dispensationalism) nor a new work loosely connected to but displacing the first (per covenantalism). I embrace the OT as my history even though I am not a Jew. I embrace Y'shua as a Torah-observant Jew who instructed His followers in the true way of Torah, the one promised in the New Covenant- written on our hearts rather than tablets of stone. I embrace the great commandments as the way of life, on which the Law and the prophets are based.
But not as God.

With a foundation as deep and rich and wide as the whole history of God's people, I have no need of man made creeds and statements. I need only the fellowship of those who love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength and who love their neighbors in a vital way as themselves. The fellowship of those who embrace the Word of God, who delight in it day and night, who meditate on it and find Life in it. The fellowship of those who view God's commands not as a burden but a joy and a peace.

Yes, I am grafted into the olive tree, the roots of which are the patriarchs, the Law and the prophets. Y'shua is my Messiah and my salvation. He is my God come in the flesh to redeem me, though it was I who had enmity toward Him. He is the God who made everlasting covenants and who is faithful to every one of them.

Help me Lord by Your spirit to love you with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and to find Life in You. Amen!
I too pray that you will find eternal life.
 
Mar 2, 2010
537
3
0
David,
I don't have a creed; none at all. I don't believe that "beliefs" or doctrines are the basis of our salvation.
My texts have not been influenced. I do not have any texts other than scripture. I read others and study, but ultimately they can only point to scripture or help me understand scripture. If they are not scriptural, I disregard what is being said.
The influence from Rome that I refered to was not the Bishop of Rome, but the Emperor. The earliest councils met under the watchful eye of Rome, and Rome was not a hands-off observer, either, but very involved in every aspect. Politics and religion mixed freely in the earliest councils.
Finally, I do embrace Y'shua as God. He is God in the flesh, as I have clearly stated in several posts on this thread.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
David,
I don't have a creed; none at all. I don't believe that "beliefs" or doctrines are the basis of our salvation.
My texts have not been influenced. I do not have any texts other than scripture. I read others and study, but ultimately they can only point to scripture or help me understand scripture. If they are not scriptural, I disregard what is being said.
The influence from Rome that I refered to was not the Bishop of Rome, but the Emperor. The earliest councils met under the watchful eye of Rome, and Rome was not a hands-off observer, either, but very involved in every aspect. Politics and religion mixed freely in the earliest councils.
Finally, I do embrace Y'shua as God. He is God in the flesh, as I have clearly stated in several posts on this thread.
I'm sorry, but you are not so distinctive as to be above human experience and human thought processes. You, yourself, have expressed that creed and you have shown your influences in the way you vehemently disavow Rome, for instance.
Your answer concerning Jesus seem in conflict with one another. You said, "I embrace Y'shua as a Torah-observant Jew who instructed His followers in the true way of Torah, the one promised in the New Covenant" and then you said, "He is my God come in the flesh to redeem me" which sounds much like the UPCI doctrine of the "dual natures" in which the two natures are side-by-side but never truly integrated. Am I misunderstanding you?
Perhaps this question would clarify the issue: Do you believe that God can die?
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
You forgot the rest of the verse! "...No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6 NRSV). Jesus was not acting alone but in perfect unison of God specifically with the persons of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit!

As heirs of "the way, and the truth, and the life" an OT motif, early Christians found the pathway to be a fertile symbol, representative of the final salvation that God had brought. Each of the Gospels cites Isaiah 40 in a figurative relation to the preparatory ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3; Mk 1:2–3; Lk 3:4–5; Jn 1:19–25), for example. This preparatory “way” finds its fulfillment in Christ. In the book of Acts we learn that the early Christians were known as those “who belonged to the Way” (Acts 9:2 NRSV), or simply as “the Way” (Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 22:14, 22).

Such terminology would be familiar to anyone acquainted with Jesus’ life or with the Gospels, where the life of the disciples can aptly be summed up under the metaphor “on the road with Jesus.” The image of the way lends structural unity to the Gospel of Mark, where discipleship is pictured as following Jesus on his way to the cross (Mk 1:2, 3; 8:27; 9:33, 34; 10:32, 52). A similar picture emerges from the Gospels of Matthew (Mt 3:3; 11:10) and Luke (Lk 1:76–79; 9:52; 13:22–23). In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ person is uniquely identified as the way, providing access and fellowship with the Father: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6 NRSV). In Hebrews, Christ’s role as high priest provides access to God “by the new and living way ” (Heb 10:20 NRSV; cf. Heb 9:8).

Pulling part of a verse out of context and assigning a wrong interpretation to it gets you no points friend.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

Jesus
 
Jun 29, 2010
398
0
0
So AOK, how do you wrongly interpret John 14:6 especially when you simply quote it.

You have proven again that it is you with the problem
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
Okay Phil,
I studied well at Moody, graduated with Honors, in fact. I know the doctrinal statement like the back of my hand. Every student had to sign it to get in and again to graduate. At the time, I was able to do that with a clear conscience. In the years since then I have continued to study the Word as much as possible and have come to conclusions other than what Moody holds to be true. The trouble with Moody (and I recognized this even while a student there) and so many other Christian and Bible colleges and seminaries, is that they tend to teach students WHAT to think rather than HOW to think. I noticed in my time at Moody that many students, myself included, were full of knowledge but not love. I know a lot about the scriptures, councils, early church, church fathers, theology and hermeneutics. I read a variety of theologies that I agree with and disagree with. I know that my knowledge and understanding is incomplete. I will never be dogmatic as you are, because I know that my understanding is limited and will be until I see God face to face. I will be a student until the day that I die.

I know the doctrine of the Trinity. I understand it completely. I know the scriptures used to support it. I don't disagree with the doctrine because I fail to understand it, I disagree with it because I think it fails to completely agree with what scripture says. ALL of scripture. It seems like a good fit for certain passages, but I don't think it best explains ALL of what scripture says.

Please do not question my diligence as a student, as an interpreter of scripture, or my knowledge of trinitarian doctrine and theology. We interpret differently. This doesn't mean I'm stupid, blind, a poor student, or careless, just as it doesn't mean that you are any of these things.
I have a question. If you graduated from Moody and you have had years since then to think about your theology, why are you only 25? It seems that you didn't have that many years to rethink it.....
 
Mar 2, 2010
537
3
0
I graduated Moody in 2007. It has been 3 years, which is nearly as much time as I actually spent at Moody.
 
Last edited:
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
I graduated Moody in 2007. It has been 3 years, which is nearly as much time as I actually spent at Moody.
Sorry. When you get to be my age "years" means alot longer than it used to. lol.
 
Mar 2, 2010
537
3
0
No need to apologize. It is understandable, certain. I'm talking about 1/8th of my life or so, so it just seems substantial from my perspective.