Are Modalists (Oneness Pentecostals) saved?

[Stealth001]

According to the Creed , a different Christ. According to CF's definition; Non-Christian.

True. But are these authorities outside of Scripture itself? I'm not saying that they are wrong. I'm just pointing out that regardless of anyone's opinion... an internet forum or a creed doesn't hold the same weight as Scripture itself.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Also, many of the classical creeds don't entirely agree. By CF's definitions, I can agree that the position is heretical. However, is it a "damnable heresy" or simply a disagreement with regards to how Jesus was indeed God?

All heresy is damnable to a heretic but to be a heretic one must willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if

1. their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and
2. they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

 

[Stealth001]

Oneness Pentecostals also take this verse literally...

Isa 44:6
6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (KJV)

​

Oneness Pentecostals take this verse as Judaism does. Thus, in Oneness theology there can be no other divine being or person beside God. Thus God is the all in all. Manifest as Father in Creation, manifest as Son in the man Jesus Christ, and manifest as the Spirit in the Spirit of the risen Christ (the Holy Spirit).

While the traditional Doxology would sing, "God in three persons, blessed Trinity"... Oneness believers would sing, "God in Christ Jesus, blessed unity." They firmly believe that Jesus is God Himself manifest in the flesh. A full unity of Godhead and humanity in one person, Jesus.

 

[Stealth001]

All heresy is damnable to a heretic but to be a heretic one must willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if

1. their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and
2. they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

I would argue that anyone denying the divinity of Jesus is in damnable heresy (Arians/Unitarians). Even Trinitarians debate over the finer elements of the ontological perichoresis of the Trinity. Why not allow for an open minded discussion with regards to "how" Jesus is God? Oneness believers would never deny that Christ is indeed God Almighty.

However, I do believe that there is a certain view common among Oneness believers that lends itself to being damnable. That doctrine is adoptionism. The idea that Jesus and the Father became one at Christ's baptism. That makes Jesus only a man. Any Oneness believer embracing that notion, I'd argue is in what might possibly be damnable heresy.

 

[Stealth001]

When I was in the Oneness Pentecostal movement I married a woman whose was from a Jewish family. When talking to rabbis I found that the Oneness view of God was in perfect agreement with the Jewish understanding of God with one exception.... Oneness believers believe that this monotheistic God was manifest in the person of the man Jesus Christ. They would call me their, "Jewish-Chrsitian friend". lol Intrigued... one rabbi even visited the Oneness church we were attending. The "speaking in tongues" thing was "strange" to him. However, he was intrigued in that he stated that he thought he heard someone praying in an ancient dialect of Hebrew... but he said he wasn't sure. Ultimately, the unnecessary focus on "speaking in tongues" frightened him away. lol

The discussions with the rabbis was fruitful in that I could discuss the Hebrew of the OT and it's nuances with a man who was linguistically trained and grounded in Hebraic tradition. It was very affirming at the time.

 

[Rev Randy]

Also, many of the classical creeds don't entirely agree. By CF's definitions, I can agree that the position is heretical. However, is it a "damnable heresy" or simply a disagreement with regards to how Jesus was indeed God?

I'm addressing both posts in one.
The Apostles creed is not required to be professed to post in Christian only sections.
i have absolutely no idea of CF determination between a damnable heresy and one lesser or even if the owner makes such a determination.
This is all i know about their position:

"Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology."

 

[Stealth001]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to unorthodox theology section of the forum. One cannot truly discuss Modalism or Oneness (the two are actually quite different by the way) without coming close to violating the terms of service.

When I speak of the difference between Oneness and Modalism, I'm referring to the struggles within the Oneness movement to maintain a biblical identity. Many Oneness believers deny Modalism when they fully understand it's implications. I encountered this many times during my 22 years in the movement.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The thread was not intended to be a discussion about modalism as much as a question about the salvation of those who hold such doctrines.

 

[Rev Randy]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to unorthodox theology section of the forum. One cannot truly discuss Modalism or Oneness (the two are actually quite different by the way) without coming close to violating the terms of service.

Nope. One can not promote it. You're doing fine as you're explaining why some hold that view and not promoting it. History is history.
The OP had a simple question but answering it isn't so simple. To say one is damned doesn't denote truth but more a guess as god alone makes such a determination. To say such a belief is in err is another thing. It's upholding the Trinitarian belief.
I'm not willing to even go as far as Knee-v did. I'm not sure if this is another Christ or just a flawed view of the same Christ.

I've been to a Oneness meeting in my early days of seeking Christ. I didn't even know by what I saw that they held such a belief. like the OP stated, TD Jakes seems to be serving God. On that I agree.

 

[Rev Randy]

The thread was not intended to be a discussion about modalism as much as a question about the salvation of those who hold such doctrines.

Would giving a no answer be a violation?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Would giving a no answer be a violation?

I do not know. I gave an answer earlier in the thread at post #14 and at the risk of repeating what others have already read I still say:

Who is saved and who is not saved is for God to decide but it is for Christians to preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience while teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but according what they are itching to hear they will gather for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)​

 

[from scratch]

I ask this because I see some sincere believers like bishop TD jakes who has a great love for God. Although he believes the Trinity doctrine now, he used to believe in the doctrine that God isnt 3 separate persons but one Person who manifests himself in 3 different ways.

Would they still be saved even though they misinterpret the God Head?

I wonder if the SDA aren't in the same group. Last month an SDA tried again to convince me there is not such thing as the Trinity. Yes I know what their SoF says. I think it is a result of deceiving Walter Martin.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The thing is .. the trinity was not an original doctrine . it was developed during the period when an influx of judaizers came into the church . we must remember that each new movement is a result of what was implied by the previous .

i.e. because those before the oneness pentecostals did not demonstrate "trinity" in their way of life and speech, they just became the rhino party of what was already pretty evident .

the baptism in the name of Jesus is scriptural . but is a break from the trinitarian church so to speak . but so far as Jesus said about the one who would not follow with the apostles .. he said he who is not against us is for us do not forbid him .

but What is necessary for salvation? by virtue of the ancient traditions it is a damnable heresy because baptism is part of salvation . in the more modern traditions . it is not necessarily because salvation is more often understood as a singular event than as a life time journey . but in the case of the baptism being different .. then it could mean all not of the ancient traditions are not saved because they didn't recieve the one baptism spoken of in the scriptures .. who can really say?

but in any case promotion of non-trinitarian doctrine is supposed to be in unorthodox theology . so as far as the doctrine is concerned .. i'm not promoting it . but those are my thoughts on it .

 

[from scratch]

Nope. One can not promote it. You're doing fine as you're explaining why some hold that view and not promoting it. History is history.
The OP had a simple question but answering it isn't so simple. To say one is damned doesn't denote truth but more a guess as god alone makes such a determination. To say such a belief is in err is another thing. It's upholding the Trinitarian belief.
I'm not willing to even go as far as Knee-v did. I'm not sure if this is another Christ or just a flawed view of the same Christ.

I've been to a Oneness meeting in my early days of seeking Christ. I didn't even know by what I saw that they held such a belief. like the OP stated, TD Jakes seems to be serving God. On that I agree.

Personally I think it is nothing more than a harmless false doctrine. The problem for me is what else are they teaching that doesn't line up with the Bible. Then there is a problem with those that use the doctrine to support other false doctrines. They don't just give me a headache. They just rile me real good.

 

[from scratch]

The thing is .. the trinity was not an original doctrine . it was developed during the period when an influx of judaizers came into the church . we must remember that each new movement is a result of what was implied by the previous .

i.e. because those before the oneness pentecostals did not demonstrate "trinity" in their way of life and speech, they just became the rhino party of what was already pretty evident .

the baptism in the name of Jesus is scriptural . but is a break from the trinitarian church so to speak . but so far as Jesus said about the one who would not follow with the apostles .. he said he who is not against us is for us do not forbid him .

but What is necessary for salvation? by virtue of the ancient traditions it is a damnable heresy because baptism is part of salvation . in the more modern traditions . it is not necessarily because salvation is more often understood as a singular event than as a life time journey . but in the case of the baptism being different .. then it could mean all not of the ancient traditions are not saved because they didn't recieve the one baptism spoken of in the scriptures .. who can really say?

but in any case promotion of non-trinitarian doctrine is supposed to be in unorthodox theology . so as far as the doctrine is concerned .. i'm not promoting it . but those are my thoughts on it .

I think the problem stems from Deut 6:4. The early church was entirely Jews/Israelites. Yet even Jews wrote 3 of 4 Gospels which support such a doctrine.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Personally I think it is nothing more than a harmless false doctrine. The problem for me is what else are they teaching that doesn't line up with the Bible. Then there is a problem with those that use the doctrine to support other false doctrines. They don't just give me a headache. They just rile me real good.

I don't consider modalism harmless when it goes beyond the layman myself as it redefines God making him both the author of confusion, mentally unstable, and less powerful. Why would God talk and pray to himself in front of an audience to make a point? I consider such actions as schizophrenic... in our world people with split personalities are mentally ill on a level and modalism makes God into such a person.

 

[Tzaousios]

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

What exactly is that plank, Lion King?

 

[Tzaousios]

Before attempting to point out the Oneness Pentecostal for their error, correct your church's errors first.

What errors are their in your particular belief? Perhaps we should address those while we are at it. Maybe you can start by saying whether or not you agree with the Oneness belief.

 

[Tzaousios]

How can you stand here and judge other churches for the questionable doctrines they keep, when your assembly also hold doctrines contrary to the ones Christ taught?

Is that not hypocrisy?

I take it you think that you hold no doctrines contrary to the ones that Christ taught, and thus are able to judge with impunity and without hypocrisy.

 

[Lion King]

What errors are their in your particular belief? Perhaps we should address those while we are at it. Maybe you can start by saying whether or not you agree with the Oneness belief.

Of course, the Oneness church is dead wrong for claiming that God and the Son are one (as in single). However, I don't get how one can claim that the Oneness church does not belong to Christ because of X heresy, when their own church is a proprietor of several questionable doctrines.

Does not fully understanding the nature of God damn them?