Question about why Oneness is so important?

I don't know much about this debate, and wondered what was the big deal and what was at stake? Does someone lose their salvation for beliving in the trinity or Jesus as God?

[Brother Price]

This is a good question.

Jesus said in John 8:24, "That is why I told you that you will die in (under the curse of) your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He [Whom I claim to be--if you do not adhere to, trust in, and rely on Me], you will die in your sins." He said that unless one believes that He is God, they shall die in their sins.

In Mark 2:5-7, we see even the Pharisees knew that only God could forgive sins, "And when Jesus saw their faith [their confidence in God through Him], He said to the paralyzed man, Son, your sins are forgiven Unregistered and put away [that is, the penalty is remitted, the sense of guilt removed, and you are made upright and in right standing with God]. Now some of the scribes were sitting there, holding a dialogue with themselves as they questioned in their hearts, Why does this Man talk like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins [remove guilt, remit the penalty, and bestow righteousness instead] except God alone?"

Thus, the belief that Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins, meaning also that He is God, is paramount to salvation.

Let's look at Isaiah 43:10-11, "You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know Me, believe Me and remain steadfast to Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior." God Himself says that there is none beside Him, none before Him, and no other Savior but Him. From time and eternity, God has always been one, and will always be only one.

Is it salvational? Yes. Why? Because the belief in the trintiy is a belief in a false god, and not making Jesus Christ, as the scriptures declared, the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

This is a good question.

Jesus said in John 8:24, "That is why I told you that you will die in (under the curse of) your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He [Whom I claim to be--if you do not adhere to, trust in, and rely on Me], you will die in your sins." He said that unless one believes that He is God, they shall die in their sins.

In Mark 2:5-7, we see even the Pharisees knew that only God could forgive sins, "And when Jesus saw their faith [their confidence in God through Him], He said to the paralyzed man, Son, your sins are forgiven Unregistered and put away [that is, the penalty is remitted, the sense of guilt removed, and you are made upright and in right standing with God]. Now some of the scribes were sitting there, holding a dialogue with themselves as they questioned in their hearts, Why does this Man talk like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins [remove guilt, remit the penalty, and bestow righteousness instead] except God alone?"

Thus, the belief that Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins, meaning also that He is God, is paramount to salvation.

Let's look at Isaiah 43:10-11, "You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know Me, believe Me and remain steadfast to Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior." God Himself says that there is none beside Him, none before Him, and no other Savior but Him. From time and eternity, God has always been one, and will always be only one.

Is it salvational? Yes. Why? Because the belief in the trintiy is a belief in a false god, and not making Jesus Christ, as the scriptures declared, the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

The trouble is in the term "person", of course. If trinitarians say God is three persons, and you say no, God is just one person, you both are using the term "person" in a symbolic way. The usual use of the word is for a human individual, which God is not, of course. One might say Jesus of Nazareth, the Man, God in human form, was a person, in that sense. But God in His eternal, infinite being is not a person (not just one literal person and not three literal persons) in that sense.

Now, trinitarians use the term "person" in a different sense. They don't mean that God is just three guys who hold meetings and shoot the breeze now and then, like three buddies down at the pub. Of course they don't. God is not three human beings! They are referring to the three "somethings" that are clearly written about in many places in the Bible. Oneness folks call the three somethings "offices" or "manifestations". Trinitarians call them "persons".

Trinitarians use "person" because that term seems to fit well, in many of the Biblical accounts of the three somethings. These somethings often speak to each other, they have different knowledge and different wills, they interact in ways that are very much like the ways persons interact. They (these offices, manifestations, or persons, or make up a new word!) are not human individuals. But they have many attributes of individuals. Two of them are Father and Son, for crying out loud! One sends another one (the Father sent the Son, and the Son sends the Comforter). One raised another from the dead. One now sits at the right hand of another!

But using the word "person" for these somethings will send a trinny to hell. Oooookaaaay.

And a baptizer quoting Jesus instead of Peter will send the baptizee to hell. Uh huh.

FourthTrumpet, I'm with you. What's the big deal, fighting over one simple word, used figuratively?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by FourthTrumpet

I don't know much about this debate, and wondered what was the big deal and what was at stake? Does someone lose their salvation for beliving in the trinity or Jesus as God?

Why are you saying believing in the trinity "or Jesus as God" as though Oneness does not believe Jesus is God?

As I said I'm not clear on everything OP believe or do not believe.

BTW I just finished listening to a long debate someone linked to with Matt Slick and a oneness guy (there's a continuation of it somewhere - anyone got a link?) and the oneness guy was constantly putting words into Matt's mouth. It was annoying to listen to, and it was clear both were confused about the others position.

Well, I'm not up for a debate on this subject. I believe simply believe my only true living and almighty God eternally exists in three persons, co-equal in glory and power: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Some how that doesn't violate God's will, and I believe only in Heaven can such a truth be articulated for us adequately - whereas on earth we simply have a limited capacity/vocabulary to wrap our heads around something we've yet to fully experience - so I don't need to be able to articulate all the fine details that only lead to endless strawman arguements and confusing debates, for others to suffer through (anyone got that link BTW ).

Somehow at the end of such a perfect non-confusing explanation I'd be vindicated as someone who is NOT worshipping multiple "gods" like the pagans do.

FT

[IAintMovin]

Hey FT ... .Your sig line.... you left out some of the scripture.... and these three are one........

Some closing thoughts from me on what I was saying in my last post..

My position is that God's existence is so far beyond our mortal experience that we cannot possible comprehend or describe it in any meaningful way. When pre-school age cannot imagine what it is like to be an adult and go to work every day, to worry about money, to have a fear of rejection or ridicule,
etc...it seems pointless trying to explain it all to them - they just cannot understand it. Similarly, when dealing with people from pre-modern villages in
3rd world countries, many simply cannot comprehend what it is like to live here in the 1st world. Many grasp that we have a higher standard of living,
but they don't understand that all of one's paycheck often immediately goes to paying a mortgage, credit card bills, taxes, etc - with no real surplus
for savings. they cannot understand that, because it is so foreign to their experience. If I assume for a moment that the universe has two types of
beings - three-fold beings and monophysite beings (like us) - I would assume that the beings with a single existence would never be able to fathom or
adequately describe the threefold existence of the other type of being. It would be impossible. Could a hypothetical 2-D stickman comprehend a 3-D pencil from our dimension going through the paper he lives on? First he'll see a little dot of lead that has a wood grained circle growing around it - eventually briefly by an eraser, etc. So how can one not roll their eyes when I hear people argue about this?

It's vanity.

The tabernacle God had Israel construct on earth was a shadow and did not do the real tabernacle in Heaven any justice. Nor did Paul consider the examples about how a dead husband frees the wife from the marriage contract to be perfect - yet it was the best example given out limited perspective to begin to wrap our heads around things.

Hope that helps.

It was editing my signature like crazy to get it all to fit, I see this one saves as well.

Weird, I was going to post more thoughts (didn't post). Basically I made an analogy of us being like 2-D stick men on paper trying to figure out in 2-D what it means to be 3-D when the artists pushes a pencil through the paper (a small lead circle with a wood colored circle growing around it , and eventually a eraser colored circle - etc). We can make theories, but without being in that artists setting we simply will never full grasp it. What John saw in Revelation is certainly not clear to human eyes, nor was articulated in a way we can wrap our heads around completely. These debates are in vain in my opinion like say one trying to explain all the fine details to a young child about how to be an adult. They have to grow to full maturity to get it all, and further more move beyond the theory and experience it for themselves. The earthly tabernacle and law was only a shadow of things in Heaven. So too the believer will never wholly grasp this concept until eternity with Jesus face to face. The best we can do is make illustratations and analogies which fall short of being 100% non-confusing.

In short: God's existence is so far beyond our human experience for us to be able to possibly comprehend or describe it in any meaningful way.

If I assume for a moment that the universe has: three-fold beings and monophysite beings (like us) - My assumption would be that the beings with a single existence would never be able to fathom or adequately describe the threefold existence of the other type of being. So how can I not I roll my eyes when I hear people argue about this?

The theological arguments, get messed up because folks assume that we have a clear understanding of the human will itself (which we don't - psychologists don't even agree), definitions of the ambiguous words like "person," etc. We cannot even settle these philosophical questions about human beings (e.g - the line between the mind and the soul, etc), so how can we possibly expect to resolve it for GOD? I supposed I could be accused of beliving in analytical contradictions, but I think this is a lame argument, because Hume showed that believing in miracles is an analytical, logical contradiction - and most oneness people are Pentecostal, believing in tongues and healing. The more precise either side tries to be, in my opinion, the more problematic their positions become.