Apostolic annointing

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your view is ill-informed.

Do tell....

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Aaron, is your reservation about not calling yourself *Oneness* due to rejecting the idea that Jesus was just a *flesh robe* for the Spirit? I'm interested to know . . .

Hi, Amanah

While such a view has crept into popular Oneness catechism, it's not really a correct way to describe the Oneness view of Jesus Christ and/or the Incarnation, and I don't think any serious Oneness adherent, if they are trying to be careful with their terms, definitions, and statements, would subscribe to such a view, either.

The "robed Himself in flesh" statement, while fairly mainstream and widespread, is a very bad oversimplification of the Oneness view, perhaps generated as an attempt to break-down and catch-phrase an otherwise rather complex theology?

However it stands for others, as it stands for me, while I disagree with the so-called "flesh robe" doctrine, it is not the reason I am no longer Oneness as it pertains to my view regarding the Godhead. It may have played a part some time ago, but it wasn't the chief part then, and certainly isn't now, although I would certainly attempt to discredit the view if I was approached about it.

But then again, I think many Oneness adherents would, or at least should, try to do the same.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I had previously asked you if you were Trinitarian. You simply posted, "No". So, I surmised your line of questioning was just to further the dialogue. Although, I still wondered at the intent of your questioning. Very much like how you approached Amanah. In the vein of a challenge. That is honestly what it felt like to me, and then I remembered you had done this before.

If the questions I ask come across as challenging, my only intent would be to offer up a side of the conversation that possibly hasn't been considered before. They are designed to offer pause and contemplation, not to start a fight or be "in your face", or even to try and rhetorically intimate that I think I'm right and the other person is wrong.

I do not take it upon myself to challenge other people's firmly held convictions. I do occasionally offer my opinion, and sometimes staunchly defend it, especially here, and will of course give a detailed account of whatever I believe, if ever I am asked to do so. Otherwise, though, who am I to judge another man's servant? To his or her own master, he or she rises or falls.

Yes, because prior to this thread, you told me you weren't a Trinitarian and then, on this thread, you stated you weren't Oneness either. I thought, as an Administrator of a Oneness forum, your statement was rather -HOLD THE PHONE - kind of info. Right? Like - What in the cat hairs is going on?

I suppose if you or others had never seen me say that, it would come as a curveball. Perhaps I need to be more circumspect in what information I relay, or at least the manner in which I do so, so that it doesn't cause such surprise or shock?

Although, I will say that we all know CC1 has been an admin for a long time, and has been pretty transparent about himself, his beliefs, views, and opinions, and etc., which don't always jive with the standard Oneness belief, view, opinion, and etc., so I guess if that's the case with him, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for me to likewise be as transparent.

I did not know you had written this information prior to today. Did you write that in the Politics area? That might be why I didn't see it. Lol! I don't have time to keep up with a lot of the threads, even though some days there aren't that many. We do go in cycles around here. We always have.

The only place I have shared this info, to my recollection is in the Debate Section. I would be hard pressed to go and find the exact thread and post at this point, though. But it is down there, more than once.

Now, when you say, as an Administrator, that the evidence for Oneness isn't strong enough in the Bible for you to embrace that truth - honestly - that is hard to get past. At that point I want to go

Please realize I didn't say what I said "as an Administrator". I said what I said as a regular member, logged in under my own screen name, meaning I wasn't, and so, didn't make what I said a formal, official proclamation for AFF. Granted, no disclaimer was present, but something like "The views expressed in this post do not necessarily represent the views of the Aff Admin team..." or what have you comes with every post that isn't administrative in origin.

It doesn't mean I don't respect you as a person. It is just hard to place you in with Apostle Paul or anyone in the Upper Room. They knew what was going on and somehow you missed it. Just hard to wrap my brain around that.

That's a very unfortunate thing to say. I've been to the "Upper Room". I received the Holy Spirit and spoke with other tongues on March 9th, 2003, as soon as I came up from the water after having been immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins by a licensed, Oneness minister.

Otherwise, please note that I have continually only stated that I am not "Oneness" as it pertains to the nature of God/the Godhead. This is a theological position that has no bearing on my soteriological position.

You have written A LOT of very lengthy posts to not wonder how you missed the most fundamental point of God manifest in the flesh. You have put in A LOT of time writing in a lengthy and studious manner, coming across as understanding what you think very deeply about a lot of stuff. I guess that is why I was a bit taken aback by your confession that the Bible isn't clear and you are not oneness on a Oneness forum.

This is another unfortunate thing to say, because I do not deny that God was manifest in the flesh. Secondly, where did I ever confess that the "Bible isn't clear"?

See, you are assuming that because you believe the Bible is clearly in favor of a Oneness theology and Christology. I am not only not persuaded of that, but am persuaded that something entirely different is clearly indicated in the Bible.

But notice! I do not undercut anyone's testimony, understanding, or experience with God with such assumptions. I may ask questions, but I don't assume anything about a person, although I sometimes think logical assumptions need to be made about a person's position as communicated here, whether always right or not to do so. But that's about it. And so, I do not write that I think you missed it, or that you can't be placed with Paul, or the Upper Room, or that you must think the Bible isn't clear, or etc.

And to me, that's what's telling. Obviously, as you noted, I take an awful lot of time to share my thoughts in as deep and serious a way as I can, when I write here of my core convictions. I try to leave no stone un-turned, and I am happy to interact and bond with people I know don't believe the same things as me, and have no problem thinking of them as my spiritual family in the Kingdom of God. I would gladly extend the right hand of fellowship to you and yours, for example. And to anyone else here that would be willing to receive it.

And so, even though I vehemently believe to my very core certain things, what I don't do is start going after how wrong I think someone is when they post something I don't agree with. That's the difference here. I keep to the issues.

So, for example, I never said Amanah was wrong to think the anointing she experiences is different in a Oneness church. I even told her I wasn't challenging her or trying to make her think she was wrong. It's right there on page one, post #9:

Please understand, I am not challenging you, or saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to open up a horizon of new possibilities, to give you something to ponder and even pray about, if you should like to do so.

So, even though she has confessed to being Oneness, knowing I am not Oneness, knowing I believe the Oneness position to be flawed, I never said anything of the sort that you, above, said to me. I do not think it hard to place Amanah in with the other apostles in the Upper Room, or with Paul, or that I think she must think the Bible isn't clear. I stayed completely neutral in this regards.

I do onto others as I desire they do onto me. Not once can anyone here say I mistreated them, accused them of wickedness or ungodliness, or belittled them, or made them feel like I was condescending toward them, in an attempt to put them in a theological stranglehold. Not even on the sly, or coyly. Not once.

But here, I offer up that I am not of the expected norm, something I did actually put out there more than once, and suddenly, there is potentially "great umbrage", and Oh! what about Sister Alvear, and some other things, and now this.

Is it any wonder that Jason B. feels the way he does? I do not say it is rampant, or pandemic to the movement as a whole, but there are pockets of spiritual hubris, a "my way or the highway, don't the let the door hit you", superiority complex in and among some Oneness adherents (and surely among other groups as well, much to the Lord's chagrin, I imagine).

Having a revelation of truth doesn't make anyone special or more beloved by God just for the having. Why, God sent Paul a satanic angel to clean his clock on a regular basis just to make sure Paul wouldn't get a swollen head over his revelations.

So how is it anyone naming the name of the Lord as Master and Savior, can still get puffed up about their doctrinal positions, to look down at another? It is quite literally beyond me. If ever I get puffed up, I hope the Lord humiliates and shames me into repentance, that I may not find myself on the receiving end of an even worse consequence.

Otherwise, if I am wrong about something, show me the error. Convert me if you can. I welcome the opportunity to learn something I didn't know, or relearn something I've forgotten. I'm not above it, really I'm not. I should imagine there are people here who can vouchsafe me in that regards.

Peace and God bless, to one and all...

Sincerely,

Aaron

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Much agreed.....

But with few exceptions, most other denominations recognize themselves as just that, a part of the church.

Whereas the UPC and the greater oneness movement believes themselves to be THE church and essentially all others damned.

I believe God guides us into more and more truth. I'll use my Mom as an example. Born to Slovakian immigrant coal miners in the Tuscarora Mountains, she was raised Catholic. She married an army guy and eventually lived in Virginia and met some AoG Pentecostals, moved to Florida and got involved with Catholics Charismatics who spoke in tongues. Went to a revival service one evening and was filled with the HG and baptized in Jesus name, attended an Apostolic church till the day she died.

I believe that Jesus name baptism is for the remission of sins and that without the Spirit of Christ we are none of his. But at the same time, I don't assume that people who are on the journey toward God are lost. I also have a hard time seeing my local AoG pastor as being lost, but I could be wrong. He is HG filled, and used greatly in the gifts of the Spirit. and he baptizes as CC1 said, in the names, and then in The Name of Jesus. It seems like a compromise, but I'm also not sure that it doesn't work.

I think the safest bet is to stick by the Acts2:38 message, and leave the rest in God's hands to sort it out. I feel a confirmation of this truth in the Spirit.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

If the questions I ask come across as challenging, my only intent would be to offer up a side of the conversation that possibly hasn't been considered before. They are designed to offer pause and contemplation, not to start a fight or be "in your face", or even to try and rhetorically intimate that I think I'm right and the other person is wrong.

Looks more like a challenge. But, I also didn't say it was an "in your face".

I do not take it upon myself to challenge other people's firmly held convictions. I do occasionally offer my opinion, and sometimes staunchly defend it, especially here, and will of course give a detailed account of whatever I believe, if ever I am asked to do so. Otherwise, though, who am I to judge another man's servant? To his or her own master, he or she rises or falls.

Okay.

I suppose if you or others had never seen me say that, it would come as a curveball. Perhaps I need to be more circumspect in what information I relay, or at least the manner in which I do so, so that it doesn't cause such surprise or shock?

Although, I will say that we all know CC1 has been an admin for a long time, and has been pretty transparent about himself, his beliefs, views, and opinions, and etc., which don't always jive with the standard Oneness belief, view, opinion, and etc., so I guess if that's the case with him, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for me to likewise be as transparent.

Yes, CC1 is pretty vocal about his disdain for the UPCI.

The only place I have shared this info, to my recollection is in the Debate Section. I would be hard pressed to go and find the exact thread and post at this point, though. But it is down there, more than once.

Please realize I didn't say what I said "as an Administrator". I said what I said as a regular member, logged in under my own screen name, meaning I wasn't, and so, didn't make what I said a formal, official proclamation for AFF. Granted, no disclaimer was present, but something like "The views expressed in this post do not necessarily represent the views of the Aff Admin team..." or what have you comes with every post that isn't administrative in origin.

You are always an Administrator, whether you post as one or not. For example, Trump doesn't get to be "Donald" on Twitter anymore.

That's a very unfortunate thing to say. I've been to the "Upper Room". I received the Holy Spirit and spoke with other tongues on March 9th, 2003, as soon as I came up from the water after having been immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins by a licensed, Oneness minister.

Great. And you aren't in agreement with the Oneness minister today?

Otherwise, please note that I have continually only stated that I am not "Oneness" as it pertains to the nature of God/the Godhead. This is a theological position that has no bearing on my soteriological position.

That doesn't make sense to me anymore than you saying you are neither Trinitarian nor Oneness.

This is another unfortunate thing to say, because I do not deny that God was manifest in the flesh. Secondly, where did I ever confess that the "Bible isn't clear"?

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Suffice it to say that the reason I am not Oneness, or said a better way, do not consider myself Oneness, is because, I am not convinced that the view adequately deals with all the evidence presented in the Bible regarding the nature of God and His Son..

That is the same thing as saying that the Bible isn't clear. Isaiah 9:6 is very clear.

See, you are assuming that because you believe the Bible is clearly in favor of a Oneness theology and Christology. I am not only not persuaded of that, but am persuaded that something entirely different is clearly indicated in the Bible.

Okay... And what would that be? See? You worked it out that you can debate this issue with Oneness believers. I noticed you sided pretty heavy with the Trinitarian poster who was here recently.

But notice! I do not undercut anyone's testimony, understanding, or experience with God with such assumptions. I may ask questions, but I don't assume anything about a person, although I sometimes think logical assumptions need to be made about a person's position as communicated here, whether always right or not to do so. But that's about it. And so, I do not write that I think you missed it, or that you can't be placed with Paul, or the Upper Room, or that you must think the Bible isn't clear, or etc.

Paul states, "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." Pretty pointed, was Paul. He held ONE view and only one.

And to me, that's what's telling. Obviously, as you noted, I take an awful lot of time to share my thoughts in as deep and serious a way as I can, when I write here of my core convictions. I try to leave no stone un-turned, and I am happy to interact and bond with people I know don't believe the same things as me, and have no problem thinking of them as my spiritual family in the Kingdom of God. I would gladly extend the right hand of fellowship to you and yours, for example. And to anyone else here that would be willing to receive it.

My meaning is that you have already made up your mind about what you believe. You can see that in your wordy and lengthy posts. So, spare me the humility line. We are all friends here even when we disagree. If you have viewed the Political thread for any time, you could see that. We give each the right and room to, in your words, "sometimes staunchly defend" our views, but we always remain friends. I hadn't made any plans of not being your friend.

And so, even though I vehemently believe to my very core certain things, what I don't do is start going after how wrong I think someone is when they post something I don't agree with. That's the difference here. I keep to the issues.

That can be done in a subversive way. For example:

So, for example, I never said Amanah was wrong to think the anointing she experiences is different in a Oneness church. I even told her I wasn't challenging her or trying to make her think she was wrong. It's right there on page one, post #9:

You came across to me, subversively, conveying that in your opinion her thinking was wrong. Of course, that is in the eyes and mind of the individual reader. We don't get to see a person's eyes or their body language to determine the whole picture on a forum.

So, even though she has confessed to being Oneness, knowing I am not Oneness, knowing I believe the Oneness position to be flawed, I never said anything of the sort that you, above, said to me. I do not think it hard to place Amanah in with the other apostles in the Upper Room, or with Paul, or that I think she must think the Bible isn't clear. I stayed completely neutral in this regards.

I am not certain that Amanah knew that about you at the beginning of your first posts on this thread. Right, I agree - it is not hard to place Amanah there with Paul. Her thoughts have always lined up very well with Paul. I am very happy to see her posting here again. She had been away for a while.

I do onto others as I desire they do onto me. Not once can anyone here say I mistreated them, accused them of wickedness or ungodliness, or belittled them, or made them feel like I was condescending toward them, in an attempt to put them in a theological stranglehold. Not even on the sly, or coyly. Not once.

Subjective...

But here, I offer up that I am not of the expected norm, something I did actually put out there more than once, and suddenly, there is potentially "great umbrage", and Oh! what about Sister Alvear, and some other things, and now this.

If Sister Alvear felt any "great umbrage", it would be for protecting what she knows as truth. She has gone to great lengths to share this gospel. If wouldn't be against you personally. And neither is my "great umbrage" against you on a personal level.

I wasn't speaking for Sis. Alvear anyway. She just came to mind as the most likely person to have "great umbrage" when her beloved truth is challenged as not found in the Bible, conclusively. We feel we have found it. This Forum is a spin off from two others that also espoused the Oneness message, and here you are.

Is it any wonder that Jason B. feels the way he does? I do not say it is rampant, or pandemic to the movement as a whole, but there are pockets of spiritual hubris, a "my way or the highway, don't the let the door hit you", superiority complex in and among some Oneness adherents (and surely among other groups as well, much to the Lord's chagrin, I imagine).

This is interesting as it came to mind a young woman I have been working with. I was thinking, feeling sorry for her, that she had been treated rather badly growing up. The Lord brought to my mind Isaiah 53. I then understood that we can hide behind our pain and hold on to excuses, but we don't have any excuses for moving on in life. We have never suffered like Jesus Christ has.

IOW, and I do like Jason B. But I also have lots of stories I could share where people would wonder why I don't go and find some other place to live for God. I believe that following His will for my life is more important than following my feelings. A political friend states, "Facts don't care about your feelings." To a degree, that is true when following after God.

Having a revelation of truth doesn't make anyone special or more beloved by God just for the having. Why, God sent Paul a satanic angel to clean his clock on a regular basis just to make sure Paul wouldn't get a swollen head over his revelations.

Very true. Having a revelation of truth doesn't make any of us more special than anyone one else. When we "sometimes staunchly defend" what we believe as truth, especially on a forum, it can come across that way. But, when tragedy hits, we all come together like NY after 911. Lots of diversity, but the horns weren't blowing at the red lights for at least a day or two. lol!

So how is it anyone naming the name of the Lord as Master and Savior, can still get puffed up about their doctrinal positions, to look down at another? It is quite literally beyond me. If ever I get puffed up, I hope the Lord humiliates and shames me into repentance, that I may not find myself on the receiving end of an even worse consequence.

Is " "sometimes staunchly defending" always being puffed up? I would say no. Again, in the eyes and mind of the reader.

Otherwise, if I am wrong about something, show me the error. Convert me if you can. I welcome the opportunity to learn something I didn't know, or relearn something I've forgotten. I'm not above it, really I'm not. I should imagine there are people here who can vouchsafe me in that regards.

"If you can"... I know I cannot.

Peace and God bless, to one and all...

Sincerely,

Aaron

Amen...

[KeptByTheWord]

In my opinion, Oneness have a better way of explaining the godhead than those who believe in the Trinity, but I have talked to many Trinitarians who believe in One God, and that Jesus was both deity and humanity.

Baptism is indeed the biggest difference between the two beliefs. It is so obvious that the apostles baptized in Jesus name, even a child could understand that.

My question to every Trin who baptizes in the titles, I ask them who died on the cross, and if the work of the cross is why we are being baptized, why not baptize in the name of Jesus? They never like that question, nor can they answer it.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Looks more like a challenge. But, I also didn't say it was an "in your face".

You are right you didn't say that. I merely used the phrase to get the point across that it's not my style to be that way.

You are always an Administrator, whether you post as one or not. For example, Trump doesn't get to be "Donald" on Twitter anymore.

Yes, I am always that, as you say. But there is still a difference, at least as we see it as admins, or at least certainly as I see it.

Great. And you aren't in agreement with the Oneness minister today?

We are friends and can easily fellowship together. He moved pretty far north of where I am, and I haven't seen him in a few years. Last time we spoke on the phone, he prophesied my future and it came to pass just as he said. I haven't a single complaint to make about the man. I love and respect him and am very grateful for the role he played in winning me to the Lord. When others were giving up on me or weren't sure how to proceed with evangelizing me, he just cut to the chase and wouldn't leave me alone. I didn't like him back then, but I respected his forthrightness. He didn't play games with me, and just kept preaching away every time he saw me.

Now, if we both sat down and started hashing things out, would we both realize we don't see eye to eye on some things? Yeah, that would probably be the case. But isn't that true with just about everyone, if we're all being honest?

That doesn't make sense to me anymore than you saying you are neither Trinitarian nor Oneness.

Perhaps I can't make it make sense. But it's still true. Although I am no longer Oneness in my view of the nature of God/the Godhead, and am not a Trinitarian, and it hasn't stopped me from continuing to immerse believing, repenting people in the name of Jesus Christ exclusively, or of me praying with people to receive the Holy Spirit expecting them to speak with other tongues.

I suppose a lot of people that leave the Oneness doctrine behind also leave their views of the Gospel, as well, and move into the Trinitarian camp. Maybe that's what's not making sense, that I am not someone who has done that.

That is the same thing as saying that the Bible isn't clear. Isaiah 9:6 is very clear.

No, it's not the same thing. It only is to you because of your position. Being entrenched in a doctrine makes people believe their view is the right one. This isn't evil or anything; it's rather noble, I suppose, in that a person is being honest to their own convictions.

But if you don't or can't see how it's not the same thing, then let's just move on.

As far as Isaiah 9:6 is concerned, I would argue that common translations in English, especially the KJV is very clear, but that doesn't mean that Isaiah 9:6 is the ultimate prooftext for the Oneness view. If you would like to discuss that, let's go to the Debate Section.

Okay... And what would that be? See? You worked it out that you can debate this issue with Oneness believers. I noticed you sided pretty heavy with the Trinitarian poster who was here recently.

If you are up to it and have the time, if you want to know exactly what I believe, to the best of my ability to articulate it, start here:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=48404

It's a long thread. My first response is on page #2. My last response is on page #38. There is a lot going on in between, with a lot of different users posting and interacting, but if you scroll through to just my posts, you will see exactly what I believe. I reread all my replies, and still stand by them all, typos notwithstanding.

There is also a corresponding thread buried deep in the Fellowship Hall from some time ago, but finding it will take some time. If I have the time and find it, I will share the link.

After that, for supplemental reading, I suggest going here:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=49132&page=11

Skip to page #11, post #107, then again on page #15, post #141, forward through to page #21, post #210.

Especially of note in the above thread, look at page #19, post #187, as I address Isaiah 9:6.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=48020

In the above thread I extensively address John 1:1; see pages 5, 7, 11, 12, 17, and 18.

And finally:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=48683

Paul states, "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." Pretty pointed, was Paul. He held ONE view and only one.

And...?

Have I stated otherwise? Am I now trying to finish in the flesh what I began in the Spirit? Am I removed from the Gospel and am now preaching Torah observance vis-a-vis Galatians 1:8-9?

If you will permit me to answer my own questions, the answers are "no", I am not attempting to finish my walk with the Lord through the flesh, and I am not preaching that anyone should attempt to observe Torah in order to be saved.

It is still the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for me. I am sure it is for you, too.

My meaning is that you have already made up your mind about what you believe. You can see that in your wordy and lengthy posts. So, spare me the humility line. We are all friends here even when we disagree. If you have viewed the Political thread for any time, you could see that. We give each the right and room to, in your words, "sometimes staunchly defend" our views, but we always remain friends. I hadn't made any plans of not being your friend.

Sure, my mind is made up, right now. But I am open enough, and flexible enough, and pragmatic enough to realize when I need to change the way I think about something when new or more convincing information is presented. Are we not all that way? Were you not once a Catholic? Wasn't your mind once made up, until it wasn't?

That can be done in a subversive way. For example:


You came across to me, subversively, conveying that in your opinion her thinking was wrong. Of course, that is in the eyes and mind of the individual reader. We don't get to see a person's eyes or their body language to determine the whole picture on a forum.


I am not certain that Amanah knew that about you at the beginning of your first posts on this thread. Right, I agree - it is not hard to place Amanah there with Paul. Her thoughts have always lined up very well with Paul. I am very happy to see her posting here again. She had been away for a while.

I realize that a person's main objective on a message board can sometimes be veiled or hard to make out, especially if one is trying to do so, but that's not me, never has been, never will be. Thinking my post on page 1 in response to Amanah is subversive--does that say more about me or about you?

(continued...)

[votivesoul]

(continued...)

Subjective...

So? Am I not allowed an opinion about myself? Your take that my post on page 1 to Amanah being subversive is subjective, too. The question I think that needs to be asked here is, if you knew I was a staunchly Oneness adherent, would you be so quick to think I was being subversive toward Amanah?

The way it looks is that because you have learned something new about me, that you didn't know before, that has caused you to say things have "changed", whatever you meant by that, something that is contrary to what you are, doctrinally speaking, something you believe cannot be the truth, since you believe what you believe, is the truth, that I now stand in doubt, that my motives which never before have you questioned, are now somehow impure enough to be called subversive.

Hey, maybe that's not how it is. Clarify and explain otherwise, if you wish. I am open and flexible enough to see things differently than they have otherwise appeared, if and once you say differently.

If Sister Alvear felt any "great umbrage", it would be for protecting what she knows as truth. She has gone to great lengths to share this gospel. If wouldn't be against you personally. And neither is my "great umbrage" against you on a personal level.

I wasn't speaking for Sis. Alvear anyway. She just came to mind as the most likely person to have "great umbrage" when her beloved truth is challenged as not found in the Bible, conclusively. We feel we have found it. This Forum is a spin off from two others that also espoused the Oneness message, and here you are.

Have I been against Sister Alvear in anything on this forum? I have prayed for her and her husband, their ministry, the people on the receiving end of their ministry, and for the street children they receive, and have cheered her on here at AFF. I am in full support and wish for them the very best of God's anointing, grace, favor, power, and provision.

But, because I'm not Oneness, there's a thought on your part that I must be anti-Oneness, or something???

This is interesting as it came to mind a young woman I have been working with. I was thinking, feeling sorry for her, that she had been treated rather badly growing up. The Lord brought to my mind Isaiah 53. I then understood that we can hide behind our pain and hold on to excuses, but we don't have any excuses for moving on in life. We have never suffered like Jesus Christ has.

IOW, and I do like Jason B. But I also have lots of stories I could share where people would wonder why I don't go and find some other place to live for God. I believe that following His will for my life is more important than following my feelings. A political friend states, "Facts don't care about your feelings." To a degree, that is true when following after God.

Feelings get trampled on, for sure, in this Kingdom we call Home. But one thing I notice, especially here, is that when someone indicates they've been hurt, even indirectly, or that it's obvious they're offended and still smarting from some abuse, instead of anyone offering some form of sympathy, they usually just get mocked for being bitter, and brushed off with nary more than a "you need to pray through", a get over it mentality.

If anyone here is no longer Oneness, and has been hurt or abused by a former church, pastor, or ministry that is Oneness, isn't the onus upon the truly spiritual to restore such a one in the spirit of meekness?

Cause I see a lot of discontent shared here, and story after story of someone power-tripping right over a saint, crushing them in the process, and nobody here reaching out to them, at least publically on one of the boards, to try and help them heal.

I can't prove it's not happening, because I don't see every post, and don't have access to every PM, but from what I have seen, yeah, it's kind of ugly.

Sure, no one has suffered like Jesus, but then again, why did He suffer? To heal the brokenhearted. If we are to be like Jesus, we then have the same commission and anointing to heal those among us who have been hurt.

But if we're not doing so, or can't do so, the issue is with us, not the brokenhearted. Hurt and abused people in any other walk of life, are understood to be the VICTIMS, but if and when it's spiritual abuse, the abused get blamed.

Is " "sometimes staunchly defending" always being puffed up? I would say no. Again, in the eyes and mind of the reader.

By no means. We are called to give a defense (apologia) in Greek. We need to be able to say what we believe and prove why we believe it.

But the truth is, we can be right about the facts of the faith, and completely wrong in how we go about sharing those facts. Tone, word choice, appearance of sarcasm, a sense of superiority, and etc. can all play a part in showing the true spirit and character of a person, even if they've got the doctrine down pat. And that's what I was getting at.

So, yeah, defend away with all staunchliness (if that's even a word!). Just be mindful regarding the manner in which it is done, because the manner can turn a person off from the truths you are otherwise trying to share.

"If you can"... I know I cannot.

My time here over the last few years, and my interactions with different users has caused me to fundamentally shift paradigms regarding certain things I used to believe. Granted, my view and understanding of the nature of God/the Godhead, hasn't changed through my time here, but a lot of other things have. So, I say, give yourself some credit! I am not fiercely opposed to Oneness doctrine, in the way some Oneness adherents are toward the doctrine of the Trinity, and vice versa.

I simply care a great deal about the Word, and the Truth, and our Savior and Lord, and whatever else I may write here at AFF, that never changes, because He saved me and forgave me, and I owe Him my all. Understanding Him is the chief pursuit for my very being. Everyday I try to know Him more, know Him better.

If there is something you know about Him that I don't, I want you to share it. And if there is something I know that you don't, I am happy to share it if you want me to.

Amen...

May the grace and peace of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you always. Amen.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Perhaps I can't make it make sense. But it's still true. Although I am no longer Oneness in my view of the nature of God/the Godhead, and am not a Trinitarian, and it hasn't stopped me from continuing to immerse believing, repenting people in the name of Jesus Christ exclusively, or of me praying with people to receive the Holy Spirit expecting them to speak with other tongues.

I suppose a lot of people that leave the Oneness doctrine behind also leave their views of the Gospel, as well, and move into the Trinitarian camp. Maybe that's what's not making sense, that I am not someone who has done that.

Right. That is probably it. I can't get it to make sense.

No, it's not the same thing. It only is to you because of your position. Being entrenched in a doctrine makes people believe their view is the right one. This isn't evil or anything; it's rather noble, I suppose, in that a person is being honest to their own convictions.

But if you don't or can't see how it's not the same thing, then let's just move on.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

I don't view my position as being entrenched in a doctrine.

When I was in church about two years, I was lying in bed. It felt like I was awake, but I was asleep. A woman was sitting in a chair by my bed and spoke, "Who is the Father? Who is the Son? Who is the Holy Ghost?" A man responded to her, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

But, I agree with you, let's drop this conversation and move on. Because, there isn't anything anyone could say to me that would change my mind. God came to me and wanted me to know who He was for the rest of my life. I don't view that as "entrenched" by an organization. God came to me.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right. That is probably it. I can't get it to make sense.



I don't view my position as being entrenched in a doctrine.

When I was in church about two years, I was lying in bed. It felt like I was awake, but I was asleep. A woman was sitting in a chair by my bed and spoke, "Who is the Father? Who is the Son? Who is the Holy Ghost?" A man responded to her, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

But, I agree with you, let's drop this conversation and move on. Because, there isn't anything anyone could say to me that would change my mind. God came to me and wanted me to know who He was for the rest of my life. I don't view that as "entrenched" by an organization. God came to me.

An awesome experience, PO! I'll share mine...

I grew up in a OP church where it was regularly preached that you needed to have a revelation of the oneness, and that you couldn't be saved without that revelation. As a child, that bothered me, because I wanted to know and understand it completely, but it was taught that you had to have some kind of revelatory experience, or you would never understand it.

Around the age of 13 or so, because of this teaching that was so hard-hitting and scary, I decided to go on a fast and see if I could have that experience, whatever it was. I remember I was in my room praying, and I was impressed to go to

Colossians 2:9-10 "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,
and ye are complete in Him,
which is the head of all principality and power."

This hit my heart like a thunderbolt! In that moment, I understood, with my heart and soul and every inch of my being, that all of who God was, was in Jesus, and that the quality of all of who Jesus was, lived in me through the indwelling of His spirit. The magnitude of that understanding caused me to both rejoice and tremble. It was a powerful moment in my life, and I will never forget it.

I would never tell someone that they couldn't be saved without this "revelation", but I would encourage everyone to ask the Lord about the godhead, the deity of Christ, and what it means to them.