All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

What is so hard to understand about the number one?

Again, not even Oneness believers entirely agree on the Godhead. Some are Modalist. Some are Monarchian. Some are Dynamic Monarchians. Some lean towards a Unitarian perspective. Some believe that the man Jesus Christ was a distinct human being from the Father...yet spiritually one with the Father. Others believe that Jesus was essentially the Father manifest in a temporal location as a human being.

When dealing with Trinitarianism you have to grapple with systematic ontology. God is a single living being. Existing in a manner that places Him beyond being defined as a "person". Thus within His nature several distinct levels of consciousness are possible. God being transcendent of time and space would have a transcendent consciousness. God emenating into time and space would have a temporal consciousness operating in time. God being Spirit would also exist as spirit on the spiritual plane. Thus, we have a single being subsisting in three distinct ontological realities that are capable of independing reason... and capable of interacting with one another. Their single essence, and coinherence, allow each to share in all that the others are... without loosing distinction.

It's a complicated philosophical mess. lol

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, not even Oneness believers entirely agree on the Godhead. Some are Modalist. Some are Monarchian. Some are Dynamic Monarchians. Some lean towards a Unitarian perspective. Some believe that the man Jesus Christ was a distinct human being from the Father...yet spiritually one with the Father. Others believe that Jesus was essentially the Father manifest in a temporal location as a human being.

When dealing with Trinitarianism you have to grapple with systematic ontology. God is a single living being. Existing in a manner that places Him beyond being defined as a "person". Thus within His nature several distinct levels of consciousness are possible. God being transcendent of time and space would have a transcendent consciousness. God emenating into time and space would have a temporal consciousness operating in time. God being Spirit would also exist as spirit on the spiritual plane. Thus, we have a single being subsisting in three distinct ontological realities that are capable of independing reason... and capable of interacting with one another. Their single essence, and coinherence, allow each to share in all that the others are... without loosing distinction.

It's a complicated philosophical mess. lol

And they all believe ONE GOD. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Your description of the trinity makes them tritheists in spite of their objections which is why it is another gospel.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pliny

If you received the Holy Ghost then you are commanded to be baptized in Jesus name. To fail to do that means you have aborted the birth process and you are DOA. Until a person is born again of the water and Spirit they cannot go to heaven.

Edited to add: God breathed the breath of life upon you and until you are baptized in Jesus name you are in the birth canal of the mother. Only after the "water" is broken (baptism takes place) you are not a full fledged member of the body. Paul was speaking to those who had already passed through the waters of baptism and were in context members of the body. The place in scripture where someone had received the Holy Ghost prior to baptism were immediately commanded to be baptized to complete the birth.

None of the analogies you have used here can be substantiated with scripture. Understand, I am declaring here that the baptism in the Holy Ghost is the new birth of the Spirit and not some "second blessing". But the Bible is clear, as stated in Ephesians chapter one verses 13-14, that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is God's sign of ownership on a life, and a validation that they have been redeemed by the blood.

Granted, only those who have truly repented and surrendered to Christ can receive it, and normally, the party has already been baptized in water. But to say that they are "in the birth canal" blah blah blah simply is not scripture. Repentance (including water baptism) is the birth canal, but Spirit baptism IS the new birth.

There is only one case in the Bible where someone received the Spirit prior to baptism, but that was a special case that God used to demonstrate that salvation was also for the Gentiles. The blood had been applied at Calvary for Cornelius as well. Based on his simple trust, God willingly filled him with the Spirit, proclaiming him to be part of the Body. Yes, God bent his own "rules" concerning baptism, and that is his prerogative. And I don't believe that Cornelius would have gone to Hell had he been killed on his way to the waters of baptism. But I find no scriptural support at all for the common practice of praying for people to receive the Spirit prior to water baptism. God does do it, but mainly because he having to work around someone's ignorance.

But back to my original point. It is ludicrous and un-Biblical to say that someone is "lost" or an "abortion" who God has marked as his own by baptizing them with his Spirit. This does mean that God will not hold accountable the one who baptized them wrongly. But if the Spirit is in them, and they are bearing fruit, they are God's. Deal with it.

Now, if you want to consign them to Hell because they "didn't obey the truth", be careful. Do you really want God to judge YOU by that same standard? What truth are YOU missing? ALL of us, through human weakness and ignorance, are missing the mark on some point in scripture. If God judges us by the same standard we lay on those who have the Spirit but were baptized incorrectly, then Heaven will be empty my friend.

As for the Trinity issue, a perfect understanding of the Godhead is not a scriptural requirement for salvation. The very fact that God baptizes converts in Trinitarian churches with the Spirit is an indication of this. There is no sinner repenting in a Oneness altar or Trintarian altar who even knows that there is a disagreement between the two groups concerning the Godhead. I've never heard a Oneness preacher require that a new convert profess a belief in the Onensss doctrine before he'll baptize them or pray for them to receive the Spirit. This why Steve Epley's argument is so silly. It's no wonder some label us a cult with that kind of nonsense being taught.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And they all believe ONE GOD. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Your description of the trinity makes them tritheists in spite of their objections which is why it is another gospel.

Sorry, but most Trinitarians believe in one God. Their way of explaining this one God's existence is ridiculous to say the least, but they do believe in one God nonetheless.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that God's prevenient grace can work with a person for many years before Jesus name baptism being revealed to them. They weren't "lost" during that period of time. In addition... I don't believe in formulas. The key is calling upon Jesus at one's baptism, it's not a magic incantation that washes away sins. If a Trinitarian is baptized by some traditional pastor reciting the Trinitarian formula, it has no bearing if the seeker is calling on the name of Jesus in their heart.

If one refuses to obey and be water baptized... or if Jesus name baptism is revealed to a person and they continue to rebel against it... yes... I do believe that God can cut them off.

I totally agree. Ananias commanded Saul to call on (invoke) the Name of the Lord in baptism. Why don't we teach that? Why do we hang someone's salvation on a "priest" saying the right "incantation" over them? Ridiculous.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Good night! You are a one trick pony aren't you?

Anyone who is reasonable knows that the good Elder is talking about His responsibility to the church he pastors. Give it a rest.

There is only one church and Epley ain't the head of it. He's assumed the head of a Roaminist system sect, promoting a modified Romanist religious priesthood/ruler system with has little resemblance to the early NT church model.

[John Hamilton]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

And don't forget all hair cutters are lost, all television owners are lost, all wedding ring wearers are lost, all who celebrate Christmas are lost, all who listen to country music are lost, all jewelry wearers are lost, all with make up on are lost, all colored shirt wearers are lost, all who wear shorts are lost, those with beards, moustaches, goatees, side burns, soul patches are lost, those who vote Democrat are lost, those that don't love Southern gospel quartet music are lost, those that let their kids play Little League are lost, those that don't use real wine for communion are lost, those that don't have foot warshin services are lost, those that put their little baby girls in baby pjs that are bifurcated are lost, those that don't have Sunday night services are lost, those that ride roller coasters at the amusement parks are lost, those that vacation in Florida rather than Branson are lost, those that play Old Maid are lost, those that don't replace the dice in your board games with a spinner are lost, those that wear open toed shoes are lost, those that say Gosh, Golly, Darn or Heck are lost, those that don't tithe are lost, those that don't wear panty hose or wear their hair up in a bun are lost, those that don't speak in tongues every dayare lost, those that don't believe like we believe are lost...

It's the song that never ends...

You forgot those that are bitter ate lost. Lol

[John Hamilton]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I've heard both OPs and trinnies use the water metaphor (liquid, vapor, solid) to support their view of the Godhead. Most of the time it is semantics.

I firmly believe in one God. I can acknowledge there is a language of distinction that Jesus uses when speaking of the Father and the Spirit. The apostles continue that language in the openings of their letters. I have used and heard tortured explanations for Jesus praying in Gethsemane, on the cross, for His many references to the Father as though He is someone other than Himself.

The truth is that there are scriptures that are challenging to trinitarian doctrine and there are passages that are difficult for ops.

But when you ask the garden variety trinnie, he/she will tell you when they get to heaven they will see one on the throne. They will tell you that Christianity and their Christianity is all about Jesus.

I think ANYONif they have never been baptized in Jesus name who claims to have this incomprehensible God figured out is at best naive and at worst arrogant.

Yes, but what if they have never been baptized in Jesus name? This is where the dividing line really shows to me. They can claim they believe I one God but if they've been baptized in the titles then they ate not Apostolic!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I totally agree. Ananias commanded Saul to call on (invoke) the Name of the Lord in baptism. Why don't we teach that? Why do we hang someone's salvation on a "priest" saying the right "incantation" over them? Ridiculous.

Wasn't it more of a confession like in Act 8:37?

Acts 8:36 "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (37) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I am shocked how Biblically illiterate some are?
1Pet.5:2:............taking the OVERSIGHT thereof"
Heb.13:7 "..........who rule OVER you", 17"....rule OVER you" 24" ...have the rule OVER you"
1Tim. 5:17 "......that rule well"
1Thess 5:12"...are OVER you in the Lord"
Acts 20:28"Holy Ghost mady you OVERSEERS"
Christ is the CHIEF Shepherd I am the UNDER shepherd.

You're not the ruler or head of the church as much as you seem to wish to self proclaim that and have folks follow you believing that. Not a single scripture you referenced agrees with your boast that you are the head of the church. For example, you posted a snipped of a verse in your failed attempt to justify your boast that you're the head of the church, a pope-like figure of the Romanist system.

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

That's the scripture in it's entirety, not just pulling out a couple of words to promote your idea that you're some sort pope-like figure, ruling and reigning over the church of Jesus Christ. You're head over heels in the Romanist system.