What has changed us in 55 years?!

I believe one of the problems, Barb, is that in the early days we "Jesus Only" folks were clearly identified as different, not by us but by them (the trinitarians). We didn't have any problem maintaining our distinctives in TRUE doctrines of the mighty God in Christ. The same was actually true among the various trinitarian groups as well... they were very distinct and proud of their distinctives and they had no problem saying "We are right and have THE truth!!"

Then, a few years ago, the ecumenical movement began and the lines were intentionally blurred, some would say by God, some would say by the devil, and he distinctives were lost. They bought into the Rodney King version of the gospel and truth.. "Can't we just all get along?"!

This has, in my opinion, resulted in an uprising among us to maintain our distinctives lest we get swallowed up into the mass of mess that is protestant denominationalism and become just another of the multitude of mealy mouthed mimes of popular cult philosophy... having no distinctives and no power of God.

When that happened, I believe much emphasis was placed on being doctrinally correct even in the songs we sing. I have sang the songs you have referenced and I have sang them in the light and the understanding of the revelation of the mighty God in Christ. That said, I now sing the Gaither song, "God became a son, his name is Jesus, He came to love, heal and forgive...". I would not serve a God who offered another, separate and apart from himself, to suffer die for me. God became flesh and dwelt among us to provide us the kinsman redeemer, the perfect lamb, the final sacrifice of blood.

I have no problem at all with the sonship or the references to the son of God. I do have a problem when he is referenced as eternal, separate, or 1/3 of yet all of God.

Fire away... this is just my view of the questions you posed.

Originally Posted by Felicity

I guess it's been an issue ever since it became an issue.

Well, God Himself said, "This is My Son in whom I am well pleased". So why can't we use the term "the Son of God"?

I don't think I've ever heard calling Jesus the "Son of God" as a problem or an issue.

I agree with you Felicity. I have no issue with the reference to the Son of God. I do, however have a problem with the term God the Son or any references to the Son of God that would imply the son being eternal (having neither beginning or ending) or separate and apart from the father in terms of physicality post calvary. As has been evidenced on other threads, I do not agree with all my Oneness brothers on the continuing office of the Son of God. I believe that today there is no distinction and that Jesus is God Almighty manifested in a glorified body that was once the son but is now Almighty God! He is now both Lamb and Lion, advocate and judge, inseparable and indivisible... God!

Originally Posted by Barb

Today I was pondering...

Fifty five, nigh onto fifty six years ago when I was born, they sang a lot of songs that we don't sing now. Well, okay...times they are a changing and new is good, too.

But let me try and get to the point...just ask some of my friends and family...I sometimes take time getting there.

Anyway, I recollect that we sang a song back in the day called Meeting in the Air...any of y'all remember it?!

The closing lines of the chorus are as follows...

Such singing you will hear
Never heard by mortal ear
Twill be glorious I do declare
And God’s own Son
Will be the leading one
At that meeting in the air

We sang another one that even as a young'un I loved...

O sweet Wonder
O sweet Wonder
Jesus the Son of God
How I adore thee
O how I love thee
Jesus the Son of God

Later on, in the early 60s when Bill and Gloria began to write, we sang...

God sent His Son
They called Him "Jesus"...

I'm sure there were other songs which mentioned "Son," but I can't recall then all right now...the point is, I don't recall anyone questioning us singing those lyrics.

No one said, "Well, we know He is the Son, but a visitor might think we believe in more than One in the Godhead!!"

Someone actually told me that, and when he sings solos, he will change the lyric so as to not mention "Son."

You know, I don't recall being confused about who Jesus is or the Godhead at all for that matter, and I think those songs are great.

So I'm wondering, what has happened in the last fifty + years to cause this "trinitarianoia?"

I mean, Bishop GT Haywood wrote Jesus the Son of God (O Sweet Wonder) and he was one of the greatest Oneness minds of his time.

Over and over the Bible makes mention of "the Son of God..."



So when did we change and why?! Or is the view of the person mentioned above unique?! Should the visitor be considered when selecting a song, making sure the lyric fits our doctrine?!

What think ye?!

i used to hate when this song when I was a child. I just knew for sure that Jesus was gonna come before the service was over and I wasn't ready. I had a deep fear of water as a child and I got already to be baptized and chickened out at the last minute. It was over a year before I finally took the plunge. lol


Oh there is going to be a meeting in the air
In the sweet sweet bye and bye
And oh I want to meet you over there
In that land beyond the sky
Such singing you will hear
Never heard by mortal ear
Will be glorious I do declare
For God's own son will be the leading one
At that meeting in the air

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by Barb

So when did we change and why?! Or is the view of the person mentioned above unique?! Should the visitor be considered when selecting a song, making sure the lyric fits our doctrine?!

What think ye?!

I haven't come across the view of the person mentioned above.

There are only a few songs that bother me and I've never heard them in a Apostolic service.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by philjones

I believe one of the problems, Barb, is that in the early days we "Jesus Only" folks were clearly identified as different, not by us but by them (the trinitarians). We didn't have any problem maintaining our distinctives in TRUE doctrines of the mighty God in Christ. The same was actually true among the various trinitarian groups as well... they were very distinct and proud of their distinctives and they had no problem saying "We are right and have THE truth!!"

Then, a few years ago, the ecumenical movement began and the lines were intentionally blurred, some would say by God, some would say by the devil, and he distinctives were lost. They bought into the Rodney King version of the gospel and truth.. "Can't we just all get along?"!

This has, in my opinion, resulted in an uprising among us to maintain our distinctives lest we get swallowed up into the mass of mess that is protestant denominationalism and become just another of the multitude of mealy mouthed mimes of popular cult philosophy... having no distinctives and no power of God.

When that happened, I believe much emphasis was placed on being doctrinally correct even in the songs we sing. I have sang the songs you have referenced and I have sang them in the light and the understanding of the revelation of the mighty God in Christ. That said, I now sing the Gaither song, "God became a son, his name is Jesus, He came to love, heal and forgive...". I would not serve a God who offered another, separate and apart from himself, to suffer die for me. God became flesh and dwelt among us to provide us the kinsman redeemer, the perfect lamb, the final sacrifice of blood.

I have no problem at all with the sonship or the references to the son of God. I do have a problem when he is referenced as eternal, separate, or 1/3 of yet all of God.

Fire away... this is just my view of the questions you posed.

PJ, I am not in disagreement with you re the sonship.

I do disagree though that we must appear to be "doctrinally correct" in songs, when referring to Christ as the Son of God IS correct.

To me it's just not necessary...JMHO...