Are Modalists (Oneness Pentecostals) saved?

By Faith Alone · Oct 28, 2013

apostolic34 said:
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...

Guess I'll be seeing you in Purgatory.. Let's set an example for the rest and not scream..DEAL?

Sophrosyne · Oct 28, 2013

Stealth001 said:
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.

You are not seeing what you are saying here... you are equating Jesus didn't exist at one time he was created by God.

Sophrosyne · Oct 28, 2013

apostolic34 said:
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...

CF's definition only defines a type of Christian... nicene. It is to limit the more unorthodox beliefs from flooding Christian only areas not to claim those who believe odd things are not Christians here.

Gregory Thompson · Oct 28, 2013

apostolic34 said:
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...

i was wondering when you might chime in .

ChetSinger · Oct 28, 2013

apostolic34 said:
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...

I'm going to guess that CF wanted some kind of criteria to keep the recently-developed unorthodox faiths such as Mormonism and the Watchtower organization from the Christian-only forums. They chose the Nicene Creed, which is acceptable to both the ancient faiths and (I believe) all of the early Protestant reformers.

From what I've read of Oneness Pentecostals, I don't know where to place them. They're clearly far more orthodox than Mormons or JWs, and less their particular Oneness theology perhaps entirely so. I guess my biggest issue is they seem to believe the rest of us aren't even Christians at all. I'm glad God will be our final judge.

Gregory Thompson · Oct 28, 2013

ChetSinger said:
I guess my biggest issue is they seem to believe the rest of aren't even Christians at all.

I noticed an air of arrogance in that way . if you haven't received their baptism and were asking an honest question . but i noticed the same thing in the evangelical congregations where they wouldn't quite say it .. but it's always implied one must believe the bible to be saved . not much different . just a different culture . same message .

from scratch · Oct 28, 2013

Michael Collum said:
I noticed an air of arrogance in that way . if you haven't received their baptism and were asking an honest question . but i noticed the same thing in the evangelical congregations where they wouldn't quite say it .. but it's always implied one must believe the bible to be saved . not much different . just a different culture . same message .

Interesting. I wonder if one doesn't believe the Bible or the ideas/facts it presents how they can possibly be saved.

from scratch · Oct 28, 2013

Michael Collum said:
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 .

What present truth? Whatever the Apostles taught wasn't the same as what the Jews held for centuries.

from scratch · Oct 28, 2013

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

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

For me I do.

Lion King · Oct 28, 2013

SwordFall said:
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.

EO teachings concerning hell:

"The Eastern Orthodox church teaches that heaven and hell are being in God's presence which is being with God and seeing God, and that there no such place as where God is not, nor is hell taught in the East as separation from God. Hell and heaven are being in God's presence, as this presence is punishment and paradise depending on the person's spiritual state in that presence. For one who hates God, to be in the presence of God eternally would be the gravest suffering." [Wikipedia]

Tzaousios · Oct 28, 2013

Lion King said:
EO teachings concerning hell:

"The Eastern Orthodox church teaches that heaven and hell are being in God's presence which is being with God and seeing God, and that there no such place as where God is not, nor is hell taught in the East as separation from God. Hell and heaven are being in God's presence, as this presence is punishment and paradise depending on the person's spiritual state in that presence. For one who hates God, to be in the presence of God eternally would be the gravest suffering." [Wikipedia]

First of all, Wikipedia is not the definitive source for Orthodox theology. Second of all, it repeats Kalomiris' theory, which is on the level of pious opinion.

What strikes me as more interesting is that in disagreeing you seem to be indicating that there is a place or existence that exists apart from or without the omnipresent and omnipotent God of the Bible. How do you explain this?

Lion King · Oct 28, 2013

Tzaousios said:
First of all, Wikipedia is not the definitive source for Orthodox theology. Second of all, it repeats Kalomiris' theory, which is on the level of pious opinion.

Fr. George Metallinos -- Paradise and Hell According to Orthodox Tradition

Satisfied?

What strikes me as more interesting is that in disagreeing you seem to be indicating that there is a place or existence that exists apart from or without the omnipresent and omnipotent God of the Bible. How do you explain this?

It's very much possible to be separated from God. Adam and Eve experienced this separation when they the fruit from the forbidden tree.

But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. Isaiah 59:2

Tzaousios · Oct 28, 2013

Lion King said:
Fr. George Metallinos -- Paradise and Hell According to Orthodox Tradition

Satisfied?

No. Please answer my question:

Tzaousios said:
What strikes me as more interesting is that in disagreeing you seem to be indicating that there is a place or existence that exists apart from or without the omnipresent and omnipotent God of the Bible. How do you explain this?

Lion King · Oct 28, 2013

Tzaousios said:
No. Please answer my question:

Edited my post.

Tzaousios · Oct 28, 2013

Lion King said:
It's very much possible to be separated from God. Adam and Eve experienced this separation when they the fruit from the forbidden tree.

But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. Isaiah 59:2

First of all, how do you define "separation"? It appears you are questioning or at least circumscribing the omnipresence of the God of the Bible. That sounds like a contradiction to me.

As far as the Orthodox opinion goes, the Church has not chosen to legislate on this particular topic as a matter of dogma in the way that the RCC or some Protestant churches do.

In my opinion, the Bible makes clear that God IS omnipresent. There is no place or existence that He is not present in or which does not receive its existence through Him. The pious opinion of the EOC that I spoke about tends to bring this into account.

Jeremiah 23:24

Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord.

Proverbs 15:3

The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.

Psalm 139:7-10

Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Colossians 1:15-17

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Ephesians 1:19-23

19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Knee V · Oct 28, 2013

Lion King said:
Fr. George Metallinos -- Paradise and Hell According to Orthodox Tradition

Satisfied?

It's very much possible to be separated from God. Adam and Eve experienced this separation when they the fruit from the forbidden tree.

But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. Isaiah 59:2

Death is separation, and separation is death. Death is not "the absence of life". Death is corruption and decay and separation and disintegrate, and that is "the wages of sin", and that is what Christ has conquered and what he casts into the lake of fire. Separation from God is only relevant to "the first death", which we know and experience now. Death as we know it, as well as its dominion and all that pertains to it, is destroyed by Christ. Whatever may be the reality of the second death -something of which we truly know very little apart from a small section of an apocalyptic writing - is something different altogether from the first death.

The Orthodox have certain ways in which we speak of the second death, but since it is something that is only partially revealed, much of what the Orthodox say about it truly is what we often call "pious opinion".

Also, when reading about Orthodox views about "heaven and hell" and the like, it is important to understand that we make a distinction between what it was like before Christ came, what it is like now, and what it will be like after Christ returns.

But as for the topic at hand, my original answer to the OP still stands. Any other Christ besides the one we have known from the beginning is not Christ but an imposter, but I leave their judgment for God who is far more merciful than I could ever hope to be.

MoreCoffee · Oct 28, 2013

Stealth001 said:
Is it possible to discuss an entire group of people and the condition of their salvation without discussing what they believe?

It is possible to discuss a heresy held by an entire group (a denomination) without presenting their statements of belief. In this case the heresy is Modalism.

Now truly it would be just to dispute against those who, by dividing and rending the monarchy, which is the most august announcement of the Church of God, into, as it were, three powers, and distinct substances (hypostases), and three deities, destroy it. For I have heard that some who preach and teach the word of God among you are teachers of this opinion, who indeed diametrically, so to speak, are opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. For he blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father, and vice versa; but these in a certain manner announce three gods, in that they divide the holy unity into three different substances, absolutely separated from one another. For it is essential that the Divine Word should be united to the God of all, and that the Holy Spirit should abide and dwell in God; and thus that the Divine Trinity should be reduced and gathered into one, as if into a certain head—that is, into the omnipotent God of all. For the doctrine of the foolish Marcion, which Gilts and divides the monarchy into three elements, is assuredly of the devil, and is not of Christ's true disciples, or of those to whom the Saviour's teaching is agreeable. For these indeed rightly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture, but that the doctrine that there are three gods is, neither taught in the Old nor in the New Testament. -- Saint Dionysius of Rome in 260 A.D. (In this letter the Pope condemns Sabellianism, and also those who separate the three Persons of the Trinity into three distinct hypostases, or declare that the Son was created.) click here for the full text

ImaginaryDay · Oct 28, 2013

Frogster said:
well...not really, they could have some truth...

And certainly they do. The idea that they preach "another Christ" just isn't true. They absolutely teach that Christ is God and that He came in the flesh. That they deny Trinitarian doctrine is a significant error for which they'll be held to account, but does not make them all 'non-Christian'.

ImaginaryDay · Oct 28, 2013

Sophrosyne said:
CF's definition only defines a type of Christian... nicene. It is to limit the more unorthodox beliefs from flooding Christian only areas not to claim those who believe odd things are not Christians here.

I understand. I was addressing the comment to someone who (appeared to) take CF and creedal definitions as authoritative. I will apologise if I misunderstood their intent, though.

ImaginaryDay · Oct 28, 2013

ChetSinger said:
From what I've read of Oneness Pentecostals, I don't know where to place them. They're clearly far more orthodox than Mormons or JWs, and less their particular Oneness theology perhaps entirely so. I guess my biggest issue is they seem to believe the rest of us aren't even Christians at all. I'm glad God will be our final judge.

This was my most significant issue in leaving. Sometimes, as Judge Judy says, "If something just doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true". Plus, I was a bit fed up with everyone screaming in "tongues" in my ear. Gets a tad obnoxious...

Are Modalists (Oneness Pentecostals) saved?

Junior Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

from scratch

Guest

Veni, vidi, vici

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Veni, vidi, vici

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Veni, vidi, vici

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

It's phonetic.

Repentance works.

We Live Here

We Live Here

We Live Here

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency