Please explain to me oneness pentecostal view on the trinity and modalism?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not to be redundant, but that's all I intended to do -- explain their reasoning.

Her reasonings are abundantly obvious.

 

[Erose]

According to the UPC and other Oneness groups to be "saved" one needs to be baptized in "Jesus' name only" (Trinitarian baptisms are evil and apostate in their view), then to receive "baptism with the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues", without glossolalia you aren't saved, you can only be saved if you have received the Holy Spirit with glossolalia.

Ok, there are also denominations out there that claim that baptism isn't the normal means by which one is saved, and they are called Christian. Which is worse?

And finally, if one has received Jesus' name baptism and tongues, salvation is entirely dependent on living a life of rigorous obedience; which is also why many of these groups adhere to harsh moralistic and rigorist practices--dictating what kinds of clothes their members can wear, hair lengths for men and women, forbidding wearing jewelry, and generally moralizing and rigorously dictating "holiness standards" to the congregants. And in violation of these standards one's salvation is at jeopardy.

Yes they expect their congregants to separate themselves from the world to a certain point. In a sense one can call this a from of institutional mortification, which I wouldn't call un-Christian. And quite honestly they are rigorous by any standards. Men are called to be clean-shaven and keep their hair cut short. No wearing of shorts in public, and some but not all call for wearing long sleeve shirts. The women, are called to let their hair grow out and wear dresses or skirts, no pants or shorts. All are called to not watch TV or movies, but radios are ok. Not sure how that would be classified as rigorous. To be honest as bad as television has become, they are probably on the right track protecting their folks from unnecessary temptations.

That's heterodox and wrong by any traditional Christian's perspective, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc.

There is only two points above that are heterodox, Jesus name baptism, and speaking in tongues is a required evidence of one's salvation. The rest are not heterodox by any standards.


Quite honestly it is how one defines who is or is not a Christian. In the wide sense, those who follow Jesus Christ as taught in Scripture, in how they understand those Scriptures, they would be classified as Christian. In the narrow sense, those baptized with the proper Trinitarian formula and believe in the Trinity, then no they would be classified as Christian.

The other point is that not everything they teach is heterodox, and that should be noted. They do believe that baptism is the normal means of which one becomes Christian. They do believe in sin and the effects of sin on one's soul. They also believe that one can loose their salvation, by backsliding from the faith. They believe in Christ's death and resurrection is the means by which we are saved. They obviously believe the in power of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is the only means by which one can overcome sin in their lives. There are other beliefs I can point out as well that are orthodox.

 

[Marcial Taguic]

In Trinity during the Incarnation, the Triune God never changed. Jesus assumed an additional nature in the Incarnation. This additional nature did not have access to the Triune God's full attributes, including omniscience.

In Oneness this is the harmonize pattern of Incarnation, Jesus humanity is the additional nature of alone God, His humanity did not have the access to the full attributes of God(Father). As the scriptures say the Son does not know His second coming but only the Father, and further Jesus only followed the Father’s will, instead of his will

 

[ViaCrucis]

This additional nature did not have access to the Triune God's full attributes, including omniscience.

The union of human nature to the Logos does not result in Jesus losing "access" to anything. He remained truly, utterly, completely, and totally God in all ways.

Yes, it is true that Jesus says that only the Father knows when Christ will return, specifically saying the Son does not know. But note it says "Son" there. The Son is God, He has always been God. It is the Son who takes on human nature in the Incarnation. The problem with attempting to say that Christ, by His humanity, lost access to aspects of His own Divinity is that rather than resolving the difficulty of passages such as this one, it instead introduces much bigger theological problems.

Instead what passages like this can do is highlight the mystery of the Incarnation. How can God who knows all things, not know something? That's a fantastic question, but we don't have an answer. But this paradox runs through the Incarnation, necessarily so: God, who cannot die, died.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Marcial Taguic]

The union of human nature to the Logos does not result in Jesus losing "access" to anything. He remained truly, utterly, completely, and totally God in all ways.

Yes, it is true that Jesus says that only the Father knows when Christ will return, specifically saying the Son does not know. But note it says "Son" there. The Son is God, He has always been God. It is the Son who takes on human nature in the Incarnation. The problem with attempting to say that Christ, by His humanity, lost access to aspects of His own Divinity is that rather than resolving the difficulty of passages such as this one, it instead introduces much bigger theological problems.

Instead what passages like this can do is highlight the mystery of the Incarnation. How can God who knows all things, not know something? That's a fantastic question, but we don't have an answer. But this paradox runs through the Incarnation, necessarily so: God, who cannot die, died.

-CryptoLutheran

I am referring to when the Son lost access during His actual earthly life. By the way, you did not come to answer about Jesus only followed the Father’s will, instead of his will. Let me present to you these verses, of how you could explain this…

• Mark 14:36: And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (ESV)
• Luke 22:42: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

 

[Marcial Taguic]

It is the Son who takes on human nature in the Incarnation.

-CryptoLutheran

According to Scripture it is God who manifests in the flesh, if it is only the Son who takes on human nature, does it mean not the whole God that manifests in the flesh?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am referring to when the Son lost access during His actual earthly life. By the way, you did not come to answer about Jesus only followed the Father’s will, instead of his will. Let me present to you these verses, of how you could explain this…

• Mark 14:36: And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (ESV)
• Luke 22:42: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

There's no reason to believe that the Son "lost access" to anything, ever.

The Son voluntarily humbled Himself, submitting Himself, to the Father in loving obedience. Further, the Son has two wills, one Divine and one human; the Divine will is thoroughly united to the Father's will, because it is the Divine will; and the human will, though distinct, is never separate from the Divine will.

Because the Son never lost the Divine will, He remained fully and totally God during His earthly ministry. It was God that was conceived in Mary's womb, it was God that was placed in the manger, it was God that "grew in wisdom before both God and men", it was God who taught in the Temple courtyard, it was God who was driven out of the synagogue, it was God who turned water into wine, it was God who was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, it was God who was sentenced under Pontius Pilate, it was God who was crucified, God who shed His blood, God who died, God who descended into hell, God who rose from the dead, God who ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father, and God who will come again and whose kingdom has no end.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

According to Scripture it is God who manifests in the flesh, if it is only the Son who takes on human nature, does it mean not the whole God that manifests in the flesh?

The Son is "the whole God".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

According to Scripture it is God who manifests in the flesh, if it is only the Son who takes on human nature, does it mean not the whole God that manifests in the flesh?

It is only God the Son (the Logos) who takes human flesh, not the Father, and not the Holy Spirit:

John 1:1-14: In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. ... The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Radagast]

The Son is "the whole God".

I'm not wild about that wording. I know that you don't mean what it sounds like.

 

[Marcial Taguic]

It is only God the Son (the Logos) who takes human flesh, not the Father, and not the Holy Spirit:

John 1:1-14: In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. ... The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Radagast will you agree to the answer of ViaCrucis?

 

[Radagast]

Radagast will you agree to the answer of ViaCrucis?

Which answer?

In any case, my brother @ViaCrucis and I will agree that the truth is expressed in the Nicene Creed, which you can find on the top-right corner of this page, under "Statement of Faith."

 

[Marcial Taguic]

Which answer?

In any case, my brother @ViaCrucis and I will agree that the truth is expressed in the Nicene Creed, which you can find on the top-right corner of this page, under "Statement of Faith."

In #47 and #48 answer.

 

[Marcial Taguic]

The Son is "the whole God".

-CryptoLutheran

Is the Father included in the whole God?

 

[Marcial Taguic]

I'm not wild about that wording. I know that you don't mean what it sounds like.

What did you tell to him?

 

[Albion]

In Trinity during the Incarnation, the Triune God never changed. Jesus assumed an additional nature in the Incarnation. This additional nature did not have access to the Triune God's full attributes, including omniscience.

If, in going with the title of this thread, you are attempting to explain the view of that small segment of Christianity which is described as "Oneness" and is otherwise Pentecostal in style, it denies the Trinity and so is considered to be unorthodox by almost all other Christian churches. It doesn't just explain the Trinity in a clever way.

 

[Marcial Taguic]

If, in going with the title of this thread, you are attempting to explain the view of that small segment of Christianity which is described as "Oneness" and is otherwise Pentecostal in style, it denies the Trinity and so is considered to be unorthodox by almost all other Christian churches. It doesn't just explain the Trinity in a clever way.

Albion will you provide me any who can explain the Trinity in clever way?

 

[Marcial Taguic]

Albion will you provide me any who can explain the Trinity in clever way?

Albion

 

[GreekOrthodox]

This is a four minute video which explains some of the analogies trying to explain the Trinity ... it's also very funny.

 

[Albion]

Albion will you provide me any who can explain the Trinity in clever way?

In the past, and still at present, there have been all sorts of groups with an explanation.

Mormons have three separate beings with physical bodies, no less. We've already mentioned the "Oneness" Pentecostals at the opposite end of that spectrum. Some say only God the Father is God, and Jesus or the Holy Ghost actually are not divine. And we have had people saying that it's just one being, God, who however has been seen in three different guises by humans. Or that it's one being who is three-way only to the extent that he does three different kinds of things at different times. The list is long.

All of them have been condemned, rejected, by the Christian churches generally because all of these conflict with some of the information we have been given in Scripture.