-
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.
A
The difference was that I gave the correct answer. And that really, is the central objective.
I see that you consistently come up with the wrong answer regarding the persons of the Godhead and have negative volition toward the right answer regarding them.
You have not given the right answer here because you denied the persons of God and the perfect unity of essence they share.
Feel free to reread my post and take corrective actions on your misunderstandings as needed. And have a great day
I see that you consistently come up with the wrong answer regarding the persons of the Godhead and have negative volition toward the right answer regarding them.
You have not given the right answer here because you denied the persons of God and the perfect unity of essence they share.
Feel free to reread my post and take corrective actions on your misunderstandings as needed. And have a great day
D
I didn't know what modolisim is so I searched it. And it is not what I believe.
I believe God is A Holy Spirit and always has been and the Title Father and Son are roles (not modes) in which God has a different relationship with His saints.
That Jesus is the name of the Eternal God of the OT and the NT.
Not that "God the Father" Became "God the Son" and then became "God the Holy Spirit"
But However all three roles still exist today. The Father places judgment upon us and corrects us. The Son shows us how we as Children of God are to be good saints. And the God is a Spirit and He is Holy.
I do not separate the three into different, modes or persons of the Godhead. For within Jesus Christ lies all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily.
God who is a Holy Spirit manifested himself into a human body so he could become our sacrificial lamb and die for our sins.
And He now lives in us by placing His Holy Spirit in us since he is an omnipresent God.
I do not believe that After the Son came, that the Role of the Father disappeared or that after Jesus "died" the role of the Son disappeared. (Which is what I gathered from modalism)
They are still there. Just like how each of us one day (if not already) will play a role as a father and a son at the same time. We just act accordingly to whatever role or relationship we have with the person.
Sorry if it doesn't make sense just ask me for clarification and I will do the best I can. I'm still learning every day just as we all should be. God Bless
PS. Keep my family in your prayers please we just lost a family member, and pray that the lost loved ones will feel the imense love of God and draw them to Him
I believe God is A Holy Spirit and always has been and the Title Father and Son are roles (not modes) in which God has a different relationship with His saints.
That Jesus is the name of the Eternal God of the OT and the NT.
Not that "God the Father" Became "God the Son" and then became "God the Holy Spirit"
But However all three roles still exist today. The Father places judgment upon us and corrects us. The Son shows us how we as Children of God are to be good saints. And the God is a Spirit and He is Holy.
I do not separate the three into different, modes or persons of the Godhead. For within Jesus Christ lies all the fullness of the Godhead Bodily.
God who is a Holy Spirit manifested himself into a human body so he could become our sacrificial lamb and die for our sins.
And He now lives in us by placing His Holy Spirit in us since he is an omnipresent God.
I do not believe that After the Son came, that the Role of the Father disappeared or that after Jesus "died" the role of the Son disappeared. (Which is what I gathered from modalism)
They are still there. Just like how each of us one day (if not already) will play a role as a father and a son at the same time. We just act accordingly to whatever role or relationship we have with the person.
Sorry if it doesn't make sense just ask me for clarification and I will do the best I can. I'm still learning every day just as we all should be. God Bless
PS. Keep my family in your prayers please we just lost a family member, and pray that the lost loved ones will feel the imense love of God and draw them to Him
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm working on a name that easily identifies the view shared by forerunner and myself, and perhaps others as well. I'm also cognizant that many Christian groups (Methodists and Anabaptists to name a couple) have historically gotten their names as a result of ridicule by their theological opponents. If David, Phil, or AoK has a creative "slander" that would easily and clearly identify our view as distinct from others, fire away. And Phil..."heresy" is not distinct and not creative. It's open season, guys.
Well it is hard to have this discussion when terms like "unitarian" and "modalism" have a lot of baggage for reasons that don't apply to some of the people on this thread. Forerunner and I have a form of oneness belief that doesn't identify 100% with Oneness Pentecostals, who currently dominate the oneness landscape. We just want a label that clearly identifies our beliefs so that we don't have to be identified with a three paragraph manifesto each time a new post goes up on this thread.
The comments about how Christian groups have sometimes gotten their names is a joke of sorts, although I welcome input from the Trinitarian guys here, since the susinct label will benefit all of us going forward.
The comments about how Christian groups have sometimes gotten their names is a joke of sorts, although I welcome input from the Trinitarian guys here, since the susinct label will benefit all of us going forward.
Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
Rev 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
Rev 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Who is this that toke the book from the hand of God????It the Son of God....Two
Rev 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
Rev 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Who is this that toke the book from the hand of God????It the Son of God....Two
Jesus is the fully God-fully man Lion and the Lamb who is worthy and able to open the book. He is God manifest in the flesh. Unless you are going to argue that every manifestation of God (Abraham's visitors (?), Jacob's wrestler, burning bush, column of smoke, etc, etc) is in fact the whole presence of God (i.e. He was manifest on earth and therefore could not also be in heaven on the throne), an argument you probably wouldn't make, then it is possible that Jesus is a manifestation of the One God who remained, even during this manifestation, on the throne in heaven. After the ascension, Jesus the God-man manifestation is with God, yet not another person apart from the One God. Two manifestations, one person.
A
First, I don't take orders from you. You'll accustom yourself to that fact. Secondly, that was a very helpful and timely point I made. But you're mashed scriptural presentation to prove your "distinctive" false hypothesis about God, which really isn't distinctive at all but just a degenerated view of Oneness Doctrine, obviously prevented you from seeing how truly helpful and thoughtful it was.
For the rest of my friends, One of the high-water marks of Synoptic Christology is to be found in Matthew 11:27. Here the reciprocity between the Father and Son is put forth with exactness, while at the same time dictating the absolute deity of both.
The relationship of the Father and Son is the topic under discussion in both John 5:16 and John 8:12. The Apostle again walks a tight line in maintaining the distinct personhood of Father and Son while asserting the full deity of Jesus Christ.
Outside of a Trinitarian concept of God, this position of John's is unintelligible. Important in this discussion is the fact that in the very same passages that the Deity of the Son is emphasized his distinction from the Father is also seen.
This causes insuperable problems for your Oneness position. In John 5:19-24, Jesus clearly differentiates himself from the Father, yet claims attributes that are only proper of Deity (life, judgment, honor).
In John 5:30 the Son says He can do nothing of Himself, yet in 37-39 he identifies Himself as the one witnessed to by the Scriptures who can give eternal life. Only Yahweh of the Tanakh can do so.
For the rest of my friends, One of the high-water marks of Synoptic Christology is to be found in Matthew 11:27. Here the reciprocity between the Father and Son is put forth with exactness, while at the same time dictating the absolute deity of both.
The relationship of the Father and Son is the topic under discussion in both John 5:16 and John 8:12. The Apostle again walks a tight line in maintaining the distinct personhood of Father and Son while asserting the full deity of Jesus Christ.
Outside of a Trinitarian concept of God, this position of John's is unintelligible. Important in this discussion is the fact that in the very same passages that the Deity of the Son is emphasized his distinction from the Father is also seen.
This causes insuperable problems for your Oneness position. In John 5:19-24, Jesus clearly differentiates himself from the Father, yet claims attributes that are only proper of Deity (life, judgment, honor).
In John 5:30 the Son says He can do nothing of Himself, yet in 37-39 he identifies Himself as the one witnessed to by the Scriptures who can give eternal life. Only Yahweh of the Tanakh can do so.
Last edited:
A
The triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema, as this article written by a friend of mine clearly explains:
The Triunity (Trinity) of God in The Old Testament
The Triunity (Trinity) of God in The Old Testament
A
I nominate the word: heresy. Since that is a dictionary definition of what this degenerative oneness position really is by historic orthdox Christian standards.
Why mask it in some new name designed to deceive. Just call it what it is: heresy.
If homosexuals can be proud of sexual immorality, I suppose heretics can be proud of heresy.
Why mask it in some new name designed to deceive. Just call it what it is: heresy.
If homosexuals can be proud of sexual immorality, I suppose heretics can be proud of heresy.
R
Which simply means, as I have eluded to in our past discussions; you keep quoting long ago Church "Father's" as your immediate sourse of information. The Bible should be FIRST and LAST sourse to get the correct info AOK.
Too many people are trusting what some long dead Church official said and treating it as "Truth". That is what The Devil likes, don't read the Bible...just Beleive what someone quoted 1700 years ago, and treat it as Gospel truth. Read AOK, read YOUR BIBLE.
Too many people are trusting what some long dead Church official said and treating it as "Truth". That is what The Devil likes, don't read the Bible...just Beleive what someone quoted 1700 years ago, and treat it as Gospel truth. Read AOK, read YOUR BIBLE.