This Place Is The Only Source Of...

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I would disagree with you that each time someone received the Holy Spirit they spoke in tongues. But I doubt I will ever convince you.

name one where it says they did not?

Its not there.. trust me.. I've searched. Unless there are portions I am not reading.

Acts 8 is the only one that doesn't mention it and it doesn't mention anything. That is a weak argument to say they didn't speak in tongues. Did you have another in mind that you could bring to my attention? I am referring to post Pentecost; not what mary or elizabeth or John the Baptist got. Those were not called the baptism of the HG.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I believe He existed before too, as the Word.

John 1:1

1 John 5:7

My beliefs closely match those of Bishop Iraneaus. That the Word and SPirit are the "hands" of God.

Yeh but the ice water vapor is one many trinitarians describe the Trinity. They aren't trinitarian in my book.

Notice you said within "himself" Even you can understand that all the fullness of God is a Himself. Does that mean that you also believe the father, Son, and HG have a singular personality aside from being distinct persons in the Godhead? If so you aren't far from oneness either.

Ha ha. If you said that the singular personality is the attributes of God then I might agree.

What solidifies me into trinitarian thinking is that the Father sent the son, that the Father gave to the son a bride, that Jesus said that he was there at creation, that the Father and the Son would send the Holy Spirit, etc.

It is hard to try to explain God. To me the Oneness position leaves out so much of the redemption plan. I do not believe that oneness people are serving another God like some do.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Ha ha. If you said that the singular personality is the attributes of God then I might agree.

What solidifies me into trinitarian thinking is that the Father sent the son, that the Father gave to the son a bride, that Jesus said that he was there at creation, that the Father and the Son would send the Holy Spirit, etc.

It is hard to try to explain God. To me the Oneness position leaves out so much of the redemption plan. I do not believe that oneness people are serving another God like some do.

Oneness doesn't disagree that the Father sent the Son, etc. What they disagree with is that One divine person sent another divine Person. Rather they believe that God the father Sent his Son (which was his Word made flesh) Not another person but part of his being, the Word of the Father. THe SOn became distinct and functioned as someone else when he became a man. We really don't see this until the NT. That is what solidifies me on the oneness position. I ask myself what changed between the OT and the NT that God starting talking like an US most of the time. The incarnation is the only difference. SOmething happened in the incarnation to cause a God who is singular in personality as Father, Word, and SPirit to become Father, Son, and Spirit and have a relationship within those roles.

I clearly recognize the distinction between Father and Son. Thats why I am so adamant for folks not to go around saying the Father is the Son, but rather the Father is in the Son and vise versa. Biblical terminology in my opinion is really the only way God meant for us to describe Him. Everything else is theory and has caused much division in Christendom.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

name one where it says they did not?

Its not there.. trust me.. I've searched. Unless there are portions I am not reading.

Acts 8 is the only one that doesn't mention it and it doesn't mention anything. That is a weak argument to say they didn't speak in tongues. Did you have another in mind that you could bring to my attention? I am referring to post Pentecost; not what mary or elizabeth or John the Baptist got. Those were not called the baptism of the HG.

I have had this settled in my mind for a few years now so it is not something I think about.

Remember, Acts spans a period of time and I think there are three or four instances of people receiving the Holy Spirit. I think only one place actually mentions tongues exclusively. You have tongues of fire in Acts 2, and prophesying in another instance along with receiving but it makes me question why we don't have prophesying or fire as an initial evidence as well as tongues.

We just have to read so much into scripture and then tongues is not mentioned at all anywhere in the rest of the bible as evidence of salvation.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Oneness doesn't disagree that the Father sent the Son, etc. What they disagree with is that One divine person sent another divine Person. Rather they believe that God the father Sent his Son (which was his Word made flesh) Not another person but part of his being, the Word of the Father. THe SOn became distinct and functioned as someone else when he became a man. We really don't see this until the NT. That is what solidifies me on the oneness position. I ask myself what changed between the OT and the NT that God starting talking like an US most of the time. The incarnation is the only difference. SOmething happened in the incarnation to cause a God who is singular in personality as Father, Word, and SPirit to become Father, Son, and Spirit and have a relationship within those roles.

I clearly recognize the distinction between Father and Son. Thats why I am so adamant for folks not to go around saying the Father is the Son, but rather the Father is in the Son and vise versa. Biblical terminology in my opinion is really the only way God meant for us to describe Him. Everything else is theory and has caused much division in Christendom.

Father, son, and spirit are the same being. The concept of God is very difficult and there has been much error about the trinity taught and has led to many misconceptions.

This is from an article by John Piper that has helped me understand:
Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: "The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and-using a common illustration-as the open palm differs from a closed fist."[4]

Because each of these "forms of existence" are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as "I" and the others as "You." Nonetheless, these three Persons all "consist of" the same "stuff" (that is, the same "what," or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one "what" but three "whos.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-...of-the-trinity

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

I have had this settled in my mind for a few years now so it is not something I think about.
.

Its something I think about quite often and not just that its necessary either. Pentecostals need to be so versed in the scripture and also open to other explanations that challenge their own because we need to know WHY we believe what we believe, not just because Pastor says so. Or thats what I've always been taught. Denominal folks are so guilty of this too. It is what my mother or grandmother always believed and thats a trap. Everyone has got to search for themselves in my opinion, even those who grew up in church. Make sure what you are being taught lines up I would say. There is too much false doctrine that is going under the radar that organizations don't pick up until its a big issue. (For instance the divine flesh doctrine of OPism that crept up.)

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Remember, Acts spans a period of time and I think there are three or four instances of people receiving the Holy Spirit. I think only one place actually mentions tongues exclusively. You have tongues of fire in Acts 2, and prophesying in another instance along with receiving but it makes me question why we don't have prophesying or fire as an initial evidence as well as tongues.
.

There are four instances where it is mentioned. Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19.

Of the four, three mentioned tongues and something else. Acts 2 is prophecy, Acts 10 is magnifying God, Acts 19 is prophecy. Prophecy is magnifying God in a language that people can understand, whether its convicting a heart or stepping into the office of a prophet and foretelling. The Spirit of prophecy is that Jesus is come in the flesh according to John. I would say the fire that didin't physically appear per say is the description of the zeal and exuberance of the experience called the HG baptism. I have witnessed very few where people were filled with the HG and spoke in tongues that they did not magnify God also. I have witness once or twice where one began to prophecy afterwards. I even witness an american Louisianna boy speak in an African native tongue and the African student wrong down what they said. It was magnifying God.

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

We just have to read so much into scripture and then tongues is not mentioned at all anywhere in the rest of the bible as evidence of salvation.

I would accompany the baptism of the HG as things that accompany salvation, not just the evidence thereof. Again I'm a little different on the subject.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Father, son, and spirit are the same being. The concept of God is very difficult and there has been much error about the trinity taught and has led to many misconceptions.

This is from an article by John Piper that has helped me understand:
Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: "The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and-using a common illustration-as the open palm differs from a closed fist."[4]

This is very close to how I believe and classic modalistic principles of eternal forms of God. Modalism isn't just sequenial (meaing the Father changed to the Son, etc.) Modalism also can believe God has existed in these three forms of existence from the beginning. Hence 1 John 5:7 (Father, Word, Spirit)

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Because each of these "forms of existence" are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as "I" and the others as "You." Nonetheless, these three Persons all "consist of" the same "stuff" (that is, the same "what," or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one "what" but three "whos.

The problem I have with the second paragraph are as follows. While the three forms are relational to one another and exhibit a distinct center of consciousness (howbeit the SPirit's distinct center is quite debatable) God revealed Himself as the I AM that I AM, not We are that We are. While God is certainly plural, especially with these forms; these forms also speak as a singular personality. Saying that I am alone and there is no Saviour beside me. The singularity of God's being emcompasses then the distinct forms. That is why JEsus can say before Abraham was, I AM and that He was with the Father in the beginning (John 1:1). Jesus and the father and the Spirit form the I AM of the Bible. Since God revealed Himself first as a single personality, we must also view Him in light of the NT as such also. Therefor the persons, while distinct, are swallowed up in the fullness of God as the I AM, not the We are.

[deltaguitar]

Onefaith,

You are so close to trinitarian doctrine. Why not just take the step? Why divide against the rest of Christianity on this issue?

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Onefaith,

You are so close to trinitarian doctrine. Why not just take the step? Why divide against the rest of Christianity on this issue?

I'm not dividing anything. The division came from the Council of Nicea that you have to view Father and Son as distinct persons within the Godhead. They are the ones who excommunicated the followers of Sabellius and Arius and deemed them heretics and lost.

Besides The three are really one person, else God would have said We are that We are, not I AM THAT I AM. I can't compromise the singular personality of God just because I recognize there are also distinctions within Him.

Why don't the Trinitarians and ONeness stop calling each other Heretics? Do you honestly think its one side?

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I'm not dividing anything. The division came from the Council of Nicea that you have to view Father and Son as distinct persons within the Godhead. They are the ones who excommunicated the followers of Sabellius and Arius and deemed them heretics and lost.

Besides The three are really one person, else God would have said We are that We are, not I AM THAT I AM. I can't compromise the singular personality of God just because I recognize there are also distinctions within Him.

Why don't the Trinitarians and ONeness stop calling each other Heretics? Do you honestly think its one side?

No. Oneness Pentecostals are labeled heretics by mainstream Christianity. I understand this. It was settled 1700 years ago. If oneness Pentecostals do not want to be viewed this way then it might be up to them to initiate dialogue with the churches.

The council of Nicaea, the way I understand it, claimed the Son as eternal. The issue of separate persons was not the issue but if Jesus was of the same stature as the Father and of the same substance.