Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
According to the Creed , a different Christ. According to CF's definition; Non-Christian.
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
- their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and
- 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.
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?
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.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.
Would giving a no answer be a violation?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
Before attempting to point out the Oneness Pentecostal for their error, correct your church's errors first.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?