why is Oneness unorthodox/frowned upon?

[Architeuthus]

However, that said, nothing in what St. Gregory wrote that you quoted implies Sola Scriptura.

Possibly you're misunderstanding Sola Scriptura, then, because as a supporter of the doctrine, I mean exactly what St Gregory said - no more, no less.

Maybe you have it mixed up with the more recent, and less orthodox, doctrine of "Solo Scriptura."

 

[Wgw]

Possibly you're misunderstanding Sola Scriptura, then, because as a supporter of the doctrine, I mean exactly what St Gregory said - no more, no less.

Maybe you have it mixed up with the more recent, and less orthodox, doctrine of "Solo Scriptura."

No. Sola Scriptura is erroneous insofar as it is unscriptural. St. Gregory of Nyassa would have recognized this. One requires Holy Tradition in order to interpret it in accordance with the Apostles. And as the culture changes and new challenges emerge for evangelization, and new heresies arrive, Holy Tradition grows to encompass more material. However, the faith once delivered by the Apostles, the Gospel, lies at the heart, and this faith is unchanging, and predates the various books of the New Testament that were written to express it.

If one neglects Holy Tradition however, or attempts to judge what is properly a part of it outside the church, one can risk winding up like John Calvin, believing in a capricious hateful God that arbitrarily spares some and condemns others, so he can demonstrate to the Elect His divine justice. Free will, the concept of God as love, the witness of the saints, the veneration of the Holy Icons, and the true doctrine of the Eucharist are sacrificed on the altar of Reformation. It amuses me by the way that Calvin, a lawyer, seems to have cared more about Justice than Love. At least Luther cared about teaching the loving nature of God; though he made many mistakes, at least he came close to Orthodoxy in that sense.

 

[Architeuthus]

No. Sola Scriptura is erroneous insofar as it is unscriptural. St. Gregory of Nyassa would have recognized this.

Perhaps I need to talk louder:

Possibly you're misunderstanding Sola Scriptura, then, because as a supporter of the doctrine, I mean EXACTLY what St Gregory said - no more, no less.

Maybe you have it mixed up with the more recent, and less orthodox, doctrine of "Solo Scriptura."

If one neglects Holy Tradition however, or attempts to judge what is properly a part of it outside the church, one can risk winding up like John Calvin, believing in a capricious hateful God that arbitrarily spares some and condemns others, so he can demonstrate to the Elect His divine justice.

The only hatefulness here is in that comment about Calvin.

But all this is off-topic, anyway.

 

[Alithis]

i can never really fully grasp the argument on this topic
he is three persons .. and he is one .

odd - two camps looking at the same thing from differing angles and then arguing their perceptions ..

 

[Wgw]

You can speak as loudly as you like, but the fact remains the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox emphatically reject sola Scriptura. In fact the Synod of Jerusalem convened by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of 1672 anathematized it, as well as Calvin in his person and his teachings, and this council, although not ecumenical, has been universally received by the other autocephalous churches on this point. The same council in its acts referred to Luther as a "madman" but did not anathematize him however.

What triggered it was a confession of Calvinism circulated in Geneva attributed to a late Ecumenical Patriarch who was strangled in the course of Ottoman political intrigue. This caused a bit of a scandal as by this time Calvinism was widely known among Orthodox theologians. But it should be noted that Orthodoxy had always been anathema to Calvinists; recall his remark in the Institutes which referred to us as the worst of idolaters, and hypocrites, because we rejected statues.

However, at the same time this was transpiring, in what would become the US, the Puritans were slowly evolving towards Congregationalism, and within a hundred years some Congregationalist ministers would begin denying the divinity of our Lord, and soon thereafter, the schism between the Calvinist and Unitarian congregations occurred. But it's amusing to note, is it not, that nowadays some of the oldest churches in the United States, which were founded by fanatical puritans, now operate as Unitarian Universalist churches and refuse to preach on principle anything specifically Christian? While at the same time, the oldest surviving Christian churches in the Middle East not comverted to mosques, like those on the grounds of St. Anthonys monastery, remain Christian. The difference is not any lack of piety on the parts of the Americans, for those of true faith simply went to other churches, but rather the dogmatic instability produced by the lack of adherence to a stable, unchanging Holy Tradition. Indeed I think what happened to the Puritans then is happening to the mainline Protestant churches now.

 

[Wgw]

Actually I must make a correction. Calvin was not anathematized in his person but rather referred to in the Acts of the synod as a "Great heresiarch," however, threefold anathemas were issued against several aspects of the entire Calvinist programme. Several of these more or less follow the threefold anathemas against iconoclasts contained in the Synodikon sung on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in Eastern Orthodox churches verbatim, whereas others attack views relating to sola Scriptura et al. You can find the text of the acts of the synod in English as a downloadable PDF from Google Books.

Like much of the theological treasure in Google Books, the scanned volume came from Harvard Divinity School, that veritable Lyceum of Unitarianism, ironically enough.

 

[he-man]

i can never really fully grasp the argument on this topic he is three persons .. and he is one
odd - two camps looking at the same thing from differing angles and then arguing their perceptions ..

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[Biblicist]

The bible never says God is not one. Twice it refers to God as one and never as three. This makes no sense to me. Apostolic's are persecuted for this belief and to me It makes no sense.

Beside the obvious theological difficulties with the Oneness position, its main offence is that as it allows for only one 'being' to be in operation at any one period of time, this means that it inadvertantly ends up denying the person of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit when the Father is supposed to be evident.

 

[Tigger45]

The Apostolic churches I've attended both only recognized Jesus to the point where both the Father and HS were religated to merely being His facades.

 

[Alithis]

Beside the obvious theological difficulties with the Oneness position, its main offence is that as it allows for only one 'being' to be in operation at any one period of time, this means that it inadvertently ends up denying the person of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit when the Father is supposed to be evident.

i think he is . he just IS ..
the lord put it perfectly when he said of himself .. " I am that I am "

 

[Biblicist]

i think he is . he just IS ..
the lord put it perfectly when he said of himself .. " I am that I am "

Now my Kiwi friend, are you suggesting that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not co-exist?

 

[Alithis]

Now my Kiwi friend, are you suggesting that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not co-exist?

lol .. again? you know i didn't say that ..or this ..or the other, i accept his word on it . "before Abraham was .. I am " . for me ..it is enough . he was he is he will be .. and eternally so

 

[he-man]

Beside the obvious theological difficulties with the Oneness position, its main offence is that as it allows for only one 'being' to be in operation at any one period of time, this means that it inadvertantly ends up denying the person of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit when the Father is supposed to be evident.

Before the Nicene Creed: Since Christianity is a religion derived from Judaism, it should not be a surprise that from the beginning it has been adamantly monotheistic. The early 2nd century Apologists like Justin Martyr rejected Marcionite and Gnostic dualism wholeheartedly and asserted the oneness of God in strong, almost Platonistic language.
Christ himself revealed the coming Spirit of God who also possessed divine attributes and too was spoken of as distinct from the Father. These statements of Jesus, along with the teaching of the epistles of Paul and John, presented a unique theological challenge to the early Christians. Speaking of Trinitarianism in the ante-Nicene period is somewhat anachronistic, since the word Trinity (Lat. trinitas) was first coined by the Latin father Tertullian in the 2nd century, and the Trinitarian doctrine was not solidified as dogma until the early 4th century. However, Roger Olson reminds us that "Christian belief in God as triune did not arise in the fourth century with Roman emporer Constantine and the Christian bishops that he dominated. Belief that it arose then as part of a vague paganizing or Hellenizing of Christianity is a caricature often promoted . Roger Olson, ]u]The Mosaic of Christian Belief,[/u] p. 135

He created the world by the word of His mouth (Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9). Natural sequences are His work (Jer. v. 22, 24; Ps. lxxiv. 15-17). He maintains the order of nature (Ps. cxlvii. 8-9, 16-18; Neh. ix. 6). He does not need the offerings of men, because "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof" (Ps. xxiv. 1, 4, 7-13; compare Isa. i. 11; Jer. vii. 21-23; Micah vi. 6-8).
Nothing is affirmed of His substantial nature. The phrase "spirit of God" ("rua? Elohim") merely describes the divine energy, and is not to be taken as equivalent to the phrase "God is a spirit," viz., an assertion concerning His incorporeality (Zech. iv. 6; Num. xiv. 22; Isa. xl. 13). He can not, however, be likened to any thing (Ex. xx. 4-5; Isa. xl. 18) or to any person (Jer. x. 6-7). No form is seen when God speaks (Deut. iv. 15) http://www.theopedia.com/Elohim

Elohim is plural for angels, whom GOD commanded to help with the creation, not a mortal man like Jesus. Isa 54:16 Lo, I--I have prepared an artisan, Blowing on a fire of coals, And bringing out an instrument for his work, And I have prepared a destroyer [angel of the Lord] to destroy.
Exo 14:19 And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
Num 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
He was only human when God created him as a mortal, without immortality. Anyone who has immortality cannot die, as Jesus did as a mortal. People do not have immortality in the second death. 2Th 1:9 who shall suffer justice--destruction age-during--from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength,

 

[Alithis]

the spirit of truth .. and "he" will led you into all truth

 

[Wgw]

That is simply a gross distortion. When Tertullian coined the word "Trinitas" to explain the triune God, je was simply explainimg the apostolic faith, as is witnessed by the fact that all of the major saints of the third century then affirmed his doctrine, as well as Origen, who was widely respected until the late fourth century. There is a direct continuity between the writings of Ss. Matthew, John, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian (who was not a saint as he later fell into the heresy of Montanism, an ultra rigorous cult reminscemt of mamy charismatic churches today), St. Hippolytus, Origen, and the Nicene Fathers.

The fact is that of the 318 bishops called to Nicea, 317 of them endorsed the creed with the word "homoousios", referring to the consubstantiality of God the Father and the Son, as separate persons but with one essence, while only one, Eusebius of Nicomedius, equivocated (he ultimately voted for the creed but with personal reservations).

317 to 1, or technically 318 to 0, is to me compellimg evidence that St. Athanasius in prosecuting Arius at Nicea argued the Apoatolic faith. Otherwise the council would jave voted in favor of Arius and would have deposed St. Alexander, the Pope of Alexandria, and his Protodeacon St. Athanasius, who was the main champion of the Orthodox cause against Arius. The hearing was a fair one, conducted by Emperor Constantine, who was neutral, who at the end of his life received baptism from an Arian bishop, and whose son Constantius rejected the council amd embraced Arianism.

 

[he-man]

the spirit of truth .. and "he" will led you into all truth

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
29 If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him.
1 John 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps I need to talk louder:

Possibly you're misunderstanding Sola Scriptura, then, because as a supporter of the doctrine, I mean EXACTLY what St Gregory said - no more, no less.

Maybe you have it mixed up with the more recent, and less orthodox, doctrine of "Solo Scriptura."

This usually turns out to be the case, but it's often hard to discern whether that's the result of misunderstanding, misinformation, or simply willful misrepresentation.

 

[x141]

The bible never says God is not one. Twice it refers to God as one and never as three. This makes no sense to me. Apostolic's are persecuted for this belief and to me It makes no sense.

(In seed form) The concept of God (in the natural it takes to points of reference (fruits of a tree) to get to any one destination) through words is relational to soul or perception, the invisible God who is a Father who has a Son whose bride is likened to a city, his habitation to a temple (not to mention stones, priests, kings, sons, etc.), that we ourselves are both individually and collectively in relationship to God (whom words cannot contain).

We are saved through perceiving that we are (which in scripture comes in the form of three things, such as the three feasts one is called up to Jerusalem to keep, or seals, bowls, and trumpets (of Revelation) or Egypt, the wilderness, and the land, or Nebuchadnezzar’s three Hebrew children, Job’s three friends, or Jesus being called up to a marriage feast after three days, or wisdom, knowledge and understanding, or what most Christian’s quote hope, faith, and love/which list goes on and on in its relation to the purpose of God, which is the filling of everything everywhere with who he is, or himself (Jesus’ glorify me with thine own self, the glory I had with you before the world was), or God all in all, or Christ all in all) in the light of being born of a mother who in one form appears as a mountain and in another form appears as a city.

The path (of life/God) or highway we walk (which depicts perception as a land we live in) is full of valleys and hills, rivers, seas, and streams, pits, robbers, and thieves (why John baptized preparing a straight path in peoples perception in relationship to the lamb who takes away the sin of the word, and the baptism of this truth). John (in his epistles) uses concepts of threes to depict those things that are one and those things that agree in one all experienced through our perception of the truth that our Father is to us, which relates to self.

 

[Winepress777]

They think Jesus the Son of God is also God the Father. Does that make sense?

Of course. Christ is the Father who Came into Jesus His Son, at His Baptism. Then two became one. Jesus is the Husband Married to New Jerusalem believers, producing sons of God. He who sees Jesus sees the Father, just as Jesus described to Philip. Basic scriptures. This is the basic Gospel. A "trinity" or "polytheism" is a bizarre concept for a "Christian" and I don't see where such an idea can give Him to know the One Only True Living God.

 

[Winepress777]

Oneness is a form of modalism, which teaches that the three parts of the Trinity are all the same being. That they progress from one to the other and are never all around at the same time. The Bible speaks against that, and even shows "pictures" that it is not true. For instance, at the time Jesus is baptized, all three are present at the same time.

Three??? So to you, God is not One?? You don't comprehend the multiple ways in which He manifests Himself, without slicing and dicing Him up into multiples? fascinating...