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.
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.
Does not fully understanding the nature of God damn them?
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
Of course, the Oneness church is dead wrong for claiming that God and the Son are one (as in single).
Lion King said: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.
Lion King said:Does not fully understanding the nature of God damn them?
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.
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.
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???
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.
What are those several questionable doctrines and how do you judge them to be questionable?
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.
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?
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.
Lion King said: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?
Lion King said:Yes. I believe so.
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.
Where are you getting this from, the pious opinion of Kalomiris?
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.
No. From the EO themselves. Rev Randy all but agreed with me (post #24).
Lion King said:Who decides what is fundamental to our faith and what is not?
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.
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.
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...
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?