Does Oneness theology (Modalism) teach a "sock puppet" view of God's nature?

[UnitedWithChrist]

I am not trying to deceive you because I just only quoted what I presented to you, I do also a research about the word "who affirm the Son of God is another person " if it is really part of the additional text of the original Nicene creed. But consider about this commentary..."since the Nicene Creed was written in Greek and the word to describe the Godhead is “homousias” meaning “the same essence.” While this term is hard to define but the word "personna" makes it.

There is really a sabotage of changing the wordings of original Nicene Creed such this words "that is from the substance of the Father" they come to change the wordings "being of one substance with the Father ". Just to make it appear that the Father is not the origin of Divinity, and make it the three persons of Trinity equally owns the Divinity.


.

Though I do not believe the word "with" is indicate a face to face relationship, even if it is a face to face relationship still we cannot negate the Biblical statement that the origin of Divinity is the Father that comes/given to Jesus.

You are quoting sources without giving the source.

Why should we accept your source, since it is likely a Oneness authority?

Why didn't you refer to the author of the commentary? If Sabin or some other Oneness person provided a reference, why wouldn't you mention his name? It is meaningless to quote a commentary without giving us some way to see his reasoning.

Again, this is a deceitful practice.

The cult leader I followed used Alexander Hislop's book "Two Babylons" to make many of his claims. Later it was discovered that Hislop falsified references in his book. Simply quoting a commentary is disingenuous.

Now, please provide the reference in this case so I can research what person you quoted.

 

[just_truth]

I feel sad that you believe the narrative of Oneness Pentecostalism. It is a false, paranoid narrative similar to the one I inherited from my religious upbringing as an Armstrongite.

Concerning your involvement with law enforcement, I am glad you are not involved with the sorts of groups we are facing today in the USA.

Your early father trinitarian Tertullian testified during his time the Monarchians(oneness modalist) were the majority of the Believers during his time. Even the popular bishops like Callistus and Zephyrinus(considered by Roman Catholics as their early popes) are Oneness modalists.
For further info, take this video...

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Your early father trinitarian Tertullian testified during his time the Monarchians(oneness modalist) were the majority of the Believers during his time. Even the popular bishops like Callistus and Zephyrinus(considered by Roman Catholics as their early popes) are Oneness modalists.
For further info, take this video...

I suppose your source is unbiased, or is it a Oneness teacher?

I think I know the answer.

Like I told you, these cults are experts at twisting facts, if there are any facts at all, in order to support their views.

 

[just_truth]

Now, please provide the reference in this case so I can research what person you quoted.

 

[just_truth]

By the way, if I understand your position correctly, you would in fact believe that the Son of God came into existence at the Incarnation. You deny that he was a distinct Person along with the Father before the creation, as John 1:1-3 clearly teaches. The word "with" in these verses indicates a face-to-face relationship.

Though I do not believe the word "with" is indicate a face to face relationship, even if it is a face to face relationship still we cannot negate the Biblical statement that the origin of Divinity is the Father that comes/given to Jesus.

By the way, can you come face to face with your utter words?

 

[just_truth]

Like I told you, these cults are experts at twisting facts, if there are any facts at all, in order to support their views.

It is twisting facts if there is no supporting factual reference to be presented.
Your statement is not convincing at all. Come also to prove with a reference that your so-called orthodox Trinitarians are the majority of the early Believers before the Roman Catholic era began in 3rd century?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It is twisting facts if there is no supporting factual reference to be presented.
Your statement is not convincing at all. Come also to prove with a reference that your so-called orthodox Trinitarians are the majority of the early Believers before the Roman Catholic era began in 3rd century?

Scripture supports the doctrine, therefore it is true.

Additionally, you cannot support your claim. Even the words of church fathers are not adequate to support this claim, because I can find other church fathers that support the other position.

The primary issue with regards to Oneness is exactly what I said. We see inter-personal activity between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You need to explain this first in light of Oneness theology, and you cannot do so. Therefore, your theology is bankrupt.

The concept of oneness of essence or being, and threeness of Person can hold up to the Scriptural standard.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Though I do not believe the word "with" is indicate a face to face relationship, even if it is a face to face relationship still we cannot negate the Biblical statement that the origin of Divinity is the Father that comes/given to Jesus.

By the way, can you come face to face with your utter words?

No.

I don't have a face to face relationship with my uttered words.

I have face to face relationships with other PERSONS.

And, if I claimed that Jesus came to be at a certain point in time, rather than always existing in a face-to-face relationship with the Father, I would be a false teacher as I wouldn't really believe that Jesus is God.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

View attachment 217904

What academic source are you claiming?

I"m not asking you to produce a screen print.

I can't read it anyways.

 

[just_truth]

Scripture supports the doctrine, therefore it is true.

Additionally, you cannot support your claim. Even the words of church fathers are not adequate to support this claim, because I can find other church fathers that support the other position.

The primary issue with regards to Oneness is exactly what I said. We see inter-personal activity between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You need to explain this first in light of Oneness theology, and you cannot do so. Therefore, your theology is bankrupt.

The concept of oneness of essence or being, and threeness of Person can hold up to the Scriptural standard.

A long time with you conversing, you only presented inter-personal activity between the Father(God) and the Son, which also I believe because of Incarnation.

But you did not present the inter-personal of the Holy Spirit with the two persons(Father and Son).

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

A long time with you conversing, you only presented inter-personal activity between the Father(God) and the Son, which also I believe because of Incarnation.

But you did not present the inter-personal of the Holy Spirit with the two persons.

The Father and Son send the Holy Spirit. This is interpersonal activity. The Holy Spirit intercedes for the believer with the Father.

Intercession is an interpersonal activity requiring three parties.

By the way I already mentioned this.

Regarding the Incarnation that is not an adequate reason.

It seems as if you want to say that the Incarnation explained the interpersonal activity between the Father and the Son without acknowledging distinct personhood of the Father and the Son. It doesn't account for it.

Like I said, I shouldn't be surprised if Oneness Pentecostals think Jesus babbled to himself, since they practice the same activity.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It is twisting facts if there is no supporting factual reference to be presented.
Your statement is not convincing at all. Come also to prove with a reference that your so-called orthodox Trinitarians are the majority of the early Believers before the Roman Catholic era began in 3rd century?

By the way, it wouldn't matter if they were the majority of believers or not.

According to you, the majority of believers are wrong and are following Rome in the Trinitarian doctrine.

Suppose I said that the majority were Oneness Pentecostals. How would that prove anything, since you don't currently use the standard that the majority of believers' view on something is the correct view?

So, why should I bother to argue with you on this, since you claim is irrelevant, even by your own standard?

Otherwise you would accept the Trinity.

 

[just_truth]

What academic source are you claiming?

I"m not asking you to produce a screen print.

I can't read it anyways.

That source I presented is not Oneness proponent anyway, if that source not academic that's your problem because that is not Oneness screen video.

 

[just_truth]

The Father and Son send the Holy Spirit. This is interpersonal activity. The Holy Spirit intercedes for the believer with the Father.

Intercession is an interpersonal activity requiring three parties.

By the way I already mentioned this.

Regarding the Incarnation that is not an adequate reason.

It seems as if you want to say that the Incarnation explained the interpersonal activity between the Father and the Son without acknowledging distinct personhood of the Father and the Son. It doesn't account for it.

Like I said, I shouldn't be surprised if Oneness Pentecostals think Jesus babbled to himself, since they practice the same activity.

Since the Holy Spirit is the one Spirit of God in action, it cannot be another person of Spirit of the Father which is in Jesus.

 

[just_truth]

According to you, the majority of believers are wrong and are following Rome in the Trinitarian doctrine.
.

I cannot remember I say that, but what I said that the majority of Believers in the 2nd century are Oneness before the Roman Catholic church era began.

 

[just_truth]

.

In my own understanding, there is no problem about the three persons/personalities of God in concern to His manifestations, the only problem with the Trinitarian belief that this three persons co-exist simultaneously as three individuals that each of them Deity(co-equal), that is really polytheism.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I asked a friend of mine with a better knowledge of church history about your claims.

He said:

There have been bishops that held to problematic views historically. But his claim seems off, not only is he referring to a time prior to much trinitarian debate in the first place; but he’s referring explicitly to a view that is seemingly of much later development.

And to clarify, just because an author references “the monarchal role of the Father” does not mean they supported the onness view. That sort of analogy was frequently used to draw explanation for the role of the Father in comparison to the Son and the Spirit.

Origen would be the best example of this early on.

He certainly was not a modalist.

And his reference to Pope Callixtus as one is blatantly false.

Here’s why

Early scholarship often referred to modalism as “Sabellianism” in reference to the first theologian to bring the view to prominence: Sabellius

Early 3rd century

He was excommunicated by the Church of Rome during the papacy of Callixtus I

For his views on the Trinity

Tertullian also made an enemy of the papacy late in life for his support of Montanism

So is the reference authentic idk

But based on what I’m looming at it seems it wouldn’t really mean much.

At any rate, I have no confidence in Oneness Pentecostal scholars having any coherent understanding of church history. This is one of the areas that cultists fail miserably at, and that's why they believe the nonsense they believe.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Additionally, my church history friend says this in regards to the Oneness view, after I explained my "sock puppet" analogy (which he did not like but I think it's accurate because the theology denies the possibility of interpersonal activity):

Wouldn’t have thought of it like that, but I think the oneness view, commits to the claim that each “persona” of God is just a different aspect or appearance

Which begs the question why only three specifically

It sets the Godhead up similar to Hinduism

Oneness views that is

This was an interesting comment...to compare Oneness theology to Hinduism.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

How in the world you believe Tertullian was a modalist is beyond me. He defended against Modalism.

I suggest that you read Against Praxeus:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/an...T-FGi42wZCwOufiJgKC34eU-TnUUkDeg-yMQPVqpvXVM0

 

[just_truth]

By the way, it wouldn't matter if they were the majority of believers or not.

It really matters that the majority of Believers were Oneness during that time of persecution of the Church because the Holy Spirit is near to them guiding and comforting in times of their distress.