Are Modalists (Oneness Pentecostals) saved?

[Lion King]

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.

It's quite amusing how you make the declaration that the Oneness church doesn't belong to Christ, but in the very same breath, claim that you leave the judgement to God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think this really needs to be said:

Belief in the Deity of Christ is not the chief criterion that makes or breaks orthodoxy.

Simply believing that Jesus is divine isn't the issue--in fact for much of the Church's ancient history most of the heresies it dealt with were from those who actually affirmed that Jesus was divine, God even.

If being able to say, "Jesus Christ is God" is the chief theological issue, then even the Arians were orthodox when they taught that there was the supreme God (the Father) and a junior God (the Son). But it was precisely over the Arian error that the bishops at Nicea put forward their confession of faith, that the Son is the same God with the Father, not a separate God.

No, the orthodox confession of faith is a much bigger, more comprehensive, deeper, richer confession. It's that God has condescended to meet us right here in our broken, fragile humanity.

God didn't just appear human (Docetism)

God didn't just adopt Jesus into divinity (Adoptionism)

God didn't just wear a human mask (Sabellianism)

God didn't veil Himself with humanity, He didn't just inhabit a human person, He didn't produce a new thing unconnected with ourselves, etc.

No. God came, He condescended and met us in weakness, fragility, in all our brokenness, God became man. Never ceasing to be God, never ceasing to be Almighty, never ceasing to be all that He ever has been and ever shall be; and yet He became what we are, as we are, fragile and weak.

The Immortal God died.

The Impassible God suffered.

The Almighty God was beaten and battered.

The Mighty God was subject to men.

God suffered.
God died.
God was crucified.
God was born.
God ate.
God drank.
God spent time with prostitutes.
God spent time with tax collectors.
God spent time with lepers.
God preached to the poor.
God preached to the weak.
God became poor.
God became weak.
God became victim.

God was all this, for our sake. And it's our very salvation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tzaousios]

It's quite amusing how you make the declaration that the Oneness church doesn't belong to Christ, but in the very same breath, claim that you leave the judgement to God.

Lion King, please see my reply to you in post #95. Thanks.

 

[Knee V]

It's quite amusing how you make the declaration that the Oneness church doesn't belong to Christ, but in the very same breath, claim that you leave the judgement to God.

I deliberately never singled out Oneness Pentecostals since I have heard too many varied opinions from them to know exactly where they stand. From some of them they appear to be modalists. From others they appear simply to have a unique way of describing the Trinity. What I am specifically addressing is modalism itself. If the Oneness Pentecostals fit that, then so be it. If not, then all the better.

I make no declarations as to who belongs to Christ. That is his own business. But I absolutely reject the idea that modalism and a number of other heresies are equally valid christian expressions, or that they represent "christianity" any more than Arians are "christians". God is who He is, and Christ is who He is, and I will accept no substitutes.

Here's something that I find interesting: when a Christian tells an atheist that there is a God, most Christians agree and don't think twice about it; and when a Christian tells a Hindu that there is only one true God, most Christians agree and don't think twice about it; and when a Christian tells a Muslim or a Jew that Jesus is God and that He is the only way to approach God, most Christians agree and don't think twice about it. But when a Christian tells another Christian that we can truly know Christ for who He truly is and there is a way to know that we know Him and there are not multiple acceptable versions of Christ, suddenly we have crossed the line into arrogance and judgmentalism.

What gives?

 

[Lion King]

Lion King, please see my reply to you in post #95. Thanks.

we've derailed the thread long enough. Let's move on.

 

[Tzaousios]

we've derailed the thread long enough. Let's move on.

Oh come on now, you have never been one to give up that easily. You will not give me the benefit of one reply? Even after I provided the prooftexts that you and a couple certain individuals always demand?

 

[Standing Up]

I think this really needs to be said:

Belief in the Deity of Christ is not the chief criterion that makes or breaks orthodoxy.

Simply believing that Jesus is divine isn't the issue--in fact for much of the Church's ancient history most of the heresies it dealt with were from those who actually affirmed that Jesus was divine, God even.

If being able to say, "Jesus Christ is God" is the chief theological issue, then even the Arians were orthodox when they taught that there was the supreme God (the Father) and a junior God (the Son). But it was precisely over the Arian error that the bishops at Nicea put forward their confession of faith, that the Son is the same God with the Father, not a separate God.-snip-

The issue was whether one believed Jesus Christ came by (born) water and blood or not.

Not that he was adopted, not that he appeared to have flesh, but was God-in-the-flesh.

Whether we understand the nuances of the Infinite One (the relationship of Father, Son, Spirit), the issue was whether one believed Christ came in the flesh by water and blood.

If not, then you were anti-Christ. It was about Christ's deity.

PS 2John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

So, you/they believe God is also in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14)?

 

[Tzaousios]

So, you/they believe God is also in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14)?

I don't see any need to circumscribe his omnipresence so that He is not there in some capacity. What about you?

 

[Messy]

I don't see any need to circumscribe his omnipresence so that He is not there in some capacity. What about you?

I don't know. God is an allconsuming fire, but fire came out of Lucifer and destroyed him. I do believe He's in the other part though in some way, Sadhu Sundhar Singh saw it. But the lake of fire is to torment satan, I don't think He's there, since He hates him.

 

[Tzaousios]

I don't know. God is an allconsuming fire, but fire came out of Lucifer and destroyed him. I do believe He's in the other part though in some way, Sadhu Sundhar Singh saw it. But the lake of fire is to torment satan, I don't think He's there, since He hates him.

Okay, but how does that square with God's omnipresence?

 

[Knee V]

I don't see any need to circumscribe his omnipresence so that He is not there in some capacity. What about you?

Not only that, but I believe that it is an error to take the apocalyptic wording of the imagery in Revelation as absolute dogma. The Lake of Fire is just as much an image as is the beast with seven heads or the lamb that speaks as a dragon. There is a truth to the Lake of Fire, a very serious truth, but I believe that it is a mistake to rely heavily on that specific wording, just as it would be a mistake to expect to see a real talking lamb with a dragon's voice. Thus I have no problem affirming that God is omnipresent and that there is no escaping him, while still affirming that eternity for those who hate Christ will be agonizing.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't see any need to circumscribe his omnipresence so that He is not there in some capacity. What about you?

I doubt He's there in any capacity. Could He change that? I suppose so, if He didn't contradict Himself.

 

[Standing Up]

Not only that, but I believe that it is an error to take the apocalyptic wording of the imagery in Revelation as absolute dogma. The Lake of Fire is just as much an image as is the beast with seven heads or the lamb that speaks as a dragon. There is a truth to the Lake of Fire, a very serious truth, but I believe that it is a mistake to rely heavily on that specific wording, just as it would be a mistake to expect to see a real talking lamb with a dragon's voice. Thus I have no problem affirming that God is omnipresent and that there is no escaping him, while still affirming that eternity for those who hate Christ will be agonizing.

They don't escape. They are sent there from His presence. That's the point. He's not there to somehow welcome them or alter them or something.

 

[Tzaousios]

I doubt He's there in any capacity. Could He change that? I suppose so, if He didn't contradict Himself.

What do you mean by "contradict?" There is nothing that says definitively that he is not there or will never be there.

They don't escape. They are sent there from His presence. That's the point. He's not there to somehow welcome them or alter them or something.

That's a particular interpretation you are making of "his presence." How does this notion of yours relate to God's omnipresence?

 

[Knee V]

They don't escape. They are sent there from His presence. That's the point. He's not there to somehow welcome them or alter them or something.

And this is based on an understanding of Revelation that sees symbolic imagery as "literal" prophecy. There is not a lake made of fire any more than there are four horsemen bringing plagues or a talking lamb that has a dragon's voice. All that imagery points to something beyond itself. The lake of fire is apocalyptic symbolic imagery, just like the rest of Revelation. Thus whether people are "sent" or otherwise is irrelevant.

 

[Tzaousios]

I don't see why God could not be there in some capacity since Christ and the holy angels are clearly described as meting out punishment using fire and brimstone in Revelation 14. It also implies that God is involved since the cup contains his wrath.

Revelation 14:9-11

9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

 

[Lion King]

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.

Personally, I would define separation from God as being spiritually dead (i.e lacking the Spirit of God in your life).

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.

Does it really matter whether or not the EO has chosen not to make it a dogma? The fact remains, the view of hell they teach to others is unbiblical. The Scriptures say that Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example to what will happen to the wicked in the end, and yet, the EO preaches that none will perish but all will be in God's love, so to speak. Doesn't that sound a lot like universalism?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

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.

Not true. God is not present in the life of satan nor is He present in the lives of the wicked (Ephesians 4:17-19). This is why the Scriptures refers every unbeliever as being dead (John 5:24).

Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Genesis 4:14-16
____

Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your holy spirit from me. Psalm 51:11
____

Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence: Jeremiah 23:39

 

[MoreCoffee]

... you make the declaration that the Oneness church doesn't belong to Christ, but in the very same breath, claim that you leave the judgement to God.

Paul did the same thing "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. ... But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

 

[rockytopva]

Onenesss Pentecostalism gives me that willies.... The people I knew in this movement totally creeped me out. But, hey, tis the season for that! Yes, they spoke in tongues, but deep down I cold not sense the inner warmth that made for a genuine love, goodness, and Christian character. And I am always leery of special revelations that were lost sense the apostles, that one needs to embrace to make it into heaven.