Are Modalists (Oneness Pentecostals) saved?

[Lion King]

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.

I no longer judge whether other believers are truly Christians or not. That's not my position. God has shown me not to make such judgement, when I'm in a far worse position than them.

 

[SwordFall]

Does not fully understanding the nature of God damn them?

I don't see any real reason why they should have an incomplete understanding of the nature of God, because the Trinity doctrine in and of itself is simply a metaphysical one. The nature of God is evident to both the modalist and trinitarian.

 

[Messy]

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?

Yes, they believe God raised Jesus from the dead. Trinitarians don't get it either that God is also one Person and they're saved.

 

[Stealth001]

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.

Is it possible to discuss an entire group of people and the condition of their salvation without discussing what they believe?

 

[Lion King]

I don't see any real reason why they should have an incomplete understanding of the nature of God, because the Trinity doctrine in and of itself is simply a metaphysical one. The nature of God is evident to both the modalist and trinitarian.

Well, for one, the doctrine regarding the nature of God and the relationship between the Father and the Son has not been fully revealed in the Scriptures. All we have are bits and pieces, and personally, I believe it's what God wanted. Our minds are just too feeble to comprehend such things. Heck, even the Trinitarians have got some things wrongs over the last few centuries regarding the true nature of God and His Son.

As another poster said:

The problem that arises is that we cannot truly fathom the actual relationship because we are limited human beings so the terms Father and Son represent the best we can do to approximate the relationship that exists within God. Anytime we try to understand something beyond our own experience we tend to relate it to things we have experience of but calling something by a name we are familiar with, does not limit it to being simply the thing that we are familiar with it merely allows us to speak of it in a way we can relate to and attempt to understand even if that understanding is limited and not complete. Paul compares it to seeing through a glass as opposed to seeing it clearly. We can get a sense of what it is but not a complete understanding of it.

 

[Tzaousios]

Of course, the Oneness church is dead wrong for claiming that God and the Son are one (as in single).

I am glad that you affirmed that they are wrong in this.

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.

What are those several questionable doctrines and how do you judge them to be questionable?

Does not fully understanding the nature of God damn them?

Not understanding this basic fundamental calls into question their beliefs on a variety of topics. It could in fact extend to their understanding of Christian salvation.

I no longer judge whether other believers are truly Christians or not. That's not my position. God has shown me not to make such judgement, when I'm in a far worse position than them.

Well, you have not been shy in the past about declaring that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not Christian churches. That would at the very least to imply something quite grave about their members' salvific status.

Do you, in fact, hold any doctrines contrary to the ones that Christ taught?

 

[Stealth001]

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.

Remember... Oneness isn't necessarily Modalism. For example, in Oneness theology the Logos (mind, plan, will) of God was made a flesh and blood human being, the man Jesus Christ. And from conception... the Father was manifest and revealed in and through this human being, the Son. Therefore, prayers between the Father and the Son are prayers between the man Jesus Christ, and the Father with whom He is one.

Oneness believers would argue that the argument you present illustrates that the divine persons are so separate as to be two individuals who can speak to one another. Thus... two divine persons, beings, or "Gods". To the Oneness believer the prayers between the Father and Son are prayers between the human and the God with whom He shares absolute oneness with.

 

[Stealth001]

If we require a certain understanding of God to be saved... how can someone who knows absolutely nothing about God be truly saved until they are indoctrinated???

Wouldn't this become a form of theological legalism???

 

[Tzaousios]

If we require a certain understanding of God to be saved... how can someone who knows absolutely nothing about God be truly saved until they are indoctrinated???

Wouldn't this become a form of theological legalism???

Doesn't Paul speak about this and lay the ground rules for interpreting belief and unbelief and the excuses made for lack of belief?

Romans 1:18-22

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 

[Lion King]

What are those several questionable doctrines and how do you judge them to be questionable?

The Eastern Orthodox church erroneously preaches that both the righteous and the wicked will be in the love of God after the resurrection of dead.

Not understanding this basic fundamental calls into question their beliefs on a variety of topics. It could in fact extend to their understanding of Christian salvation.

That is true. However, you haven't really answered the question. Are they damned for claiming that the Father and Jesus are one and the same?

Well, you have not been shy in the past about declaring that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not Christian churches. That would at the very least to imply something quite grave about their members' salvific status.

Do you, in fact, hold any doctrines contrary to the ones that Christ taught?

Yes. I believe so.

 

[Tzaousios]

The Eastern Orthodox church erroneously preaches that both the righteous and the wicked will be in the love of God after the resurrection of dead.

Where are you getting this from, the pious opinion of Kalomiris?

That is true. However, you haven't really answered the question. Are they damned for claiming that the Father and Jesus are one and the same?

I do not claim to know the ultimate mind of God or the mercies he may extend on a case-by-case basis. However, historically-speaking, the pattern has been that those who willfully profess false doctrine concerning the fundamentals of the faith are considered heretics and in danger of hellfire.

Yes. I believe so.

How have you made this rather exclusive and complete determination?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

i think it has more to do with "the present truth" that peter spoke of in his letter . apparently there were things that were done/taught at the very beginning that became obsolete once the apostle's understanding was complete .

 

[Lion King]

Where are you getting this from, the pious opinion of Kalomiris?

No. From the EO themselves. Rev Randy all but agreed with me (post #24).

I do not claim to know the ultimate mind of God or the mercies he may extend on a case-by-case basis. However, historically-speaking, the pattern has been that those who willfully profess false doctrine concerning the fundamentals of the faith are considered heretics and in danger of hellfire.

Who decides what is fundamental to our faith and what is not?

 

[Tzaousios]

Can you please reply to all of the specifics in my post? You left stuff out.

No. From the EO themselves. Rev Randy all but agreed with me (post #24).

"All but agreed with me" leaves a good deal of room for your interpretation of his words and what Orthodoxy believes.

Who decides what is fundamental to our faith and what is not?

I would very much appreciate it if you would answer this question first.

 

[SwordFall]

The Eastern Orthodox church erroneously preaches that both the righteous and the wicked will be in the love of God after the resurrection of dead.

Are you serious?

That is definitively more protestant then anything.

You all go on a big ol' binge about how we're all wicked- but not if you believe our sins were accounted for.
It's like the king of all nonsensical belief.

 

[Frogster]

I no longer judge whether other believers are truly Christians or not. That's not my position. God has shown me not to make such judgement, when I'm in a far worse position than them.

paul judged, and he was chief of sinners, so your position has been allowed for, we are allowed to judge..




15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Based on every explanation of "Oneness" teaching as it concerns the Incarnation this is how it has seemed to me:

Jesus the man was a veil, or robe, or tent in which God dwelt while on earth. The flesh of Christ covers, or veils upon the Divinity of God (the Father) who dwelt therein.

Jesus, thus, is little more than God wearing a human suit for a time, in order to accomplish the task of atonement.

This in stark contrast to the orthodox teaching:

Jesus is the God-Man. He is not God veiled behind human flesh, God dwelling within a human being who functions as the outer shell of the Divinity. No. Jesus is true God and true man. The true joining of Deity and humanity together in the unity of His Person without separating the natures and without confusing them.

When Jesus prays, "Our Father..." this is God praying to God. Son to Father. The Son is God. The Oneness teaching is that the Son refers to the humanity worn by God; the orthodox teaching is that the Son is Himself true God, and that there is therefore a real and actual relationship between Father and Son.

The Oneness teaching preaches a three-faced God, a God of three masks; Father above, Son in the flesh, and Holy Spirit dwelling in us.

In stark contrast the orthodox teaching is that the One God is Holy Trinity. There is real Father, real Son, and real Holy Spirit; and the Three are One, eternal, consubstantial, uncreated, Almighty.

The Oneness view of Christ ultimately destroys the reality of the Incarnation. It isn't God inhabiting a man, God veiled by flesh; it is the union of God and man together in the Person of Jesus Christ. This is why we confess that He is True God, being eternal and only-begotten of the Father; and He is True Man, being conceived in and born of the Virgin Mary.

Without separation, without division, without confusion, without confounding. One Christ, Lord, Son, God, Word, Man, Savior. Who from eternity past is God with God and God from God, True Son of the Father; who from His conception is True Son of Man, Child of Mary, and is from now and everlasting Risen Lord and Christ, seated at the right hand of the Father, from which He will come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead, King of kingdom everlasting, God-Man, Jesus Christ our Lord and Sovereign.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[By Faith Alone]

Who...made...that...flesh?

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Is the Oneness position "another Christ"... or is it a different perspective of the very same Jesus that we're all talking about? They do not deny the absolute divinity of Jesus. In fact, they are it's greatest proponents.

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

Are we going by Creed and CF definition now to define who is a Christian? If 'Oneness Pentecostals' preach "another Christ" and I came to Christ through them, then I guess I'm in some serious trouble...

 

[Frogster]

Are we going by Creed and CF definition now to define who is a Christian? If 'Oneness Pentecostals' preach "another Christ" and I came to Christ through them, then I guess I'm in some serious trouble...

well...not really, they could have some truth...