Sounds at least similar to a few people on this forum (who shall remain nameless)....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist
Sometimes hidden dangers spring on us suddenly. Those are out of our control. But when one can see the danger, and then refuses to arrest , all in the name of "God is in control", they are forfeiting God given, preventive opportunities.
I've heard many preachers say things that could be taken this way. Things like:
"God was asleep in the boat" - Jesus was asleep as a man
"God died on the cross" - Jesus died as a man
"Jesus was his own father" - Jesus as a man wasn't the father of his humanity. This has led trinitarians to draw cartoons of Mary holding the baby Jesus and asking him as a baby how he got her pregnant.
The poll is private so no one can see who responded. The following was written by a Oneness Pentecostal on another Oneness discussion forum which is now closed. It is in regard to a specific type of "Oneness" teaching regarding the "person and nature" of God and the poll is obviously in regard to this so please read:
“This is an issue that comes up from time to time, and I thought it would be good to discuss it here. Most Oneness people see Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, but recognize that the flesh is not just a shell or a husk, but an actual human man, making Jesus both God and man at the same time. We talk about the dual nature of Jesus, and we recognize that, while Jesus was God according to the spirit, on some strictly finite human level, there was a son of God. We have no hesitation about referring to the man Christ Jesus as the literal son of God, while still recognizing His divinity (which is the spirit of the Father in Him). We see an intertwining of deity and humanity, without detracting from either. But there are, within our ranks, a number of people who have a very different view of this...a view that I find startling, personally.
You've heard of "hyper-Calvinism" before? Well, I've nick-named this the "hyper-Oneness" position. Those who believe this way go to Oneness churches and baptize in Jesus' name, just like the rest of us, but their view of Jesus is radically different. Basically, they see Jesus as nothing more than God in a shell of human flesh, basically "being" his own son. To their way of thinking, Jesus was just the Father going through the motions of sonship, putting on a demonstration of submission, and acting out the role of a son, but they don't really believe in a literal son of God at all.
Hyper-Oneness believers are constantly having to re-interpret and re-define (read: twist) what the scriptures are actually saying. When they read scriptures about the Father loving the son, or about the son growing in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man, they have to make that into the Father "loved that image of himself" (sort of). The beautiful story of the garden of Gethesemane, where Jesus surrended his will in the garden and said "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" is totally lost on them, as they see it more or less as a divine example or a charade.
Some scriptures are particularly troublesome to those who hold this position. For example, when Jesus died on the cross and said "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit", that gets re-interpreted into something like God releasing the Spirit to go back to Himself (God-the-acrobat?). And the verse about the son delivering the kingdom up to the Father that God may be all in all--well, they just read over that one fast and kind of don't think about it too much.
I used to go to a church where the pastor was very much into this postion. I tried very hard--desperately, even--to accept that position and make it fit with the Bible, but it just didn't jibe with the scriptures, and that's all there was to it. I would be told that I "needed a revelation", and when I would ask about all of the many scriptures that so resoundingly refute this position, I'd get get absolutely no where. Later on, I came to realize that I wasn't the one who needed a revelation--they were.
I have since found that a proper Oneness explanation (one that doesn't clash with half the Bible) is not only the accepted norm in our circles, but that those who are taught a correct view are scarcely aware of aberrant views on the issue that exist. But the arrogance, the hostility, and the stinging rejection of those on the other side (people who don't even bother trying to make their view jibe with the Word of God) is hard to take. I have actually seen a church divided over this to the point where people completely lost respect for their pastor, saying he "needed a revelation" when he taught Bro. Bernard's book "the Oneness of the Godhead" and dealt with Jesus saying "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit". The fact that their position was indefensible in the light of much of the Bible didn't deter them in the least.
What have the rest of you seen with regard to this? Does it seem to follow geographical trends? It would be interesting to see if there is a pattern.”
Let me add that as I understand the poster the "hyper-Oneness" teaching as he calls it does not have a real I/you relationship between the Father and the Son. What is interesting is that when I first began having discussions with Oneness Pentecostals back in the 1990's before CARM and other forums even existed (my first discussions were on an old AOL discussion board which were "chat rooms" and not really forums as we know them today) the first two OP's I had discussions were teachers/believers of this "Hyper-Oneness" doctrine without a doubt. Since that time I can only remember one other OP who taught this (there have been several that sounded like it at first but if you ask the right questions you find this is not what they believe). So with this in mind, to the poll. (As always, comment is not necessary, but if you want to add information or address the questions of the Oneness Pentecostal who actually wrote this post, that would be great!)
Thanks,
TheLayman
Wow. Using an OP to try to what? What is the purpose? Certainly not to learn due to the post used. It is far from scholarly. It is an opinion laced appeal to illicit a condemnation.
For example, they don’t believe in a real son of God at all (para. 2). What evidence is given that the “they” don’t believe in a son of god at all? None. It is simply the writer’s opinion of what they believe.
The proverbial “they” once again are said to have to re-interpret and redefine what the scriptures actually say (para. 3). Again, this is the writer’s opinion alone. It may very well be that the writer just does not like the answer to the question he/she may have posed. It would not be the first time someone misunderstood something. He/she goes on to say that Gethsemane is lost on them. Really? Again this is the author’s opinion. I doubt that the proverbial “them” would agree.
In para. 4 the writer says “they” have to reinterpret the meaning of the text when Jesus commends His spirit into the hands of the Father. Also, he/she states that they read over and don’t think about other passages of scripture. How do we know this? Because the writer gives his/her opinion.
Para. 5 begins with an appeal to emotion – “I tried so hard, desperately to make it fit the bible”. The writer states these bad people were given “many scriptures that resoundingly refuted their position” to no avail.
Para. 6 The great writer then tells us they found the answer that does not clash with half the bible but – the arrogance of those bad people, the hostility and the stinging rejection of those bad people who don’t even bother with the word of God…
On and on it goes. An appeal to emotion for what ends? Since I do not know the individual nor the accrual event(s) or the application of doctrine by those evil wicked people who refuse to acknowledge the writers supposed attempts to correct their course, I cannot provide data either for or against such a post.
(Pro 18:13 ESV) If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.
(Pro 18:17 ESV) The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
What good is a poll when it is based on a potentially false premise? If the premise is false then the results are false. Now why would a Trinitarian do such a thing?
I agree with the poster and in my mind comes this:
2 JOHN 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Those times were a heresy (gnosticism like) who believe that God did not actually came in flesh (son of God) but only manifest ,and it was like an imagination or vision ! thus for them there was not real ,nor real body nor real blood!
is this different from the Ethopian issue that caused the split some years ago with Tekkalamarian?
or is that different?
I think different. The issue with the split with the Ethiopian Apostolic Church was over divine flesh, the idea that not even the flesh of Christ was human, or more specifically that Mary contributed anything to the humanity of Christ through her own.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:
I think different. The issue with the split with the Ethiopian Apostolic Church was over divine flesh, the idea that not even the flesh of Christ was human, or more specifically that Mary contributed anything to the humanity of Christ through her own.
right. thanks
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
