Oneness Theology

[BronxBriar]

Brothers and Sisters,

I am a recently born-again and I am interested in various pentecostal churches. As some of my wife's family became AOG I have been fortunate to attend worship with them once and while.

Recently I received a very nice book catalog from the United Pentecostal Church and the focus on many of their publications seems to be on 'oneness theology'. My question to you is this: Is oneness theology a way of thinking about the Jesus and the Trinity that is considered outside the mainstream of pentecostal belief? From what I can tell on a few internet sites I've searched it appears that it is.

I would be interested in your opinion.

Warm Regards.

 

[muffler dragon]

Oneness Theology claims that the Father and the Son are identically the same entity.

http://www.carm.org/oneness.htm

Here's a site that can give you some background. It will also help explain some of the problems with such a theology.

m.d.

 

[shawn_h76]

Oneness Theology claims that the Father and the Son are identically the same entity.

Hello again MD,

Jesus christ stated that," My Father and I are one"(john10:30)
When Phillip asked Jesus to show him the father, Jesus replied you see him (Jesus) you see the Father?( john 14:7-8)
.........................................................................................................
Did you know Jesus never proclaimed himself to be seperate from God the father and never said he is the third part of the trinty. If you read John4:24 it states God is a Spirit, In john 14:10 Jesus proclaimed that the Father is in him and he is the Father. That is impossible unless you are God, one and the same being.
........................................................................................................
Bronx, I want you to look up these verses in the bible. Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 43:10-11,Isaiah 44:6-8, Mattew 1:23, John 1:1, john 1:14, john 8:58, john10:30-33, john 20:28, 1 timothy 3:16, and revelations 1:8-1:11
If you want a brief history on the trinity doctrine, you can go to thunderministries.com/history/triad/onlyone.html

 

[muffler dragon]

Oneness Theology claims that the Father and the Son are identically the same entity.

QUOTE]

Hello again MD,

Jesus christ stated that," My Father and I are one"(john10:30)
When Phillip asked Jesus to show him the father, Jesus replied you see him (Jesus) you see the Father?( john 14:7-8)
.........................................................................................................
Did you know Jesus never proclaimed himself to be seperate from God the father and never said he is the third part of the trinty. If you read John4:24 it states God is a Spirit, In john 14:10 Jesus proclaimed that the Father is in him and he is the Father. That is impossible unless you are God, one and the same being.
........................................................................................................
Bronx, I want you to look up these verses in the bible. Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 43:10-11,Isaiah 44:6-8, Mattew 1:23, John 1:1, john 1:14, john 8:58, john10:30-33, john 20:28, 1 timothy 3:16, and revelations 1:8-1:11
If you want a brief history on the trinity doctrine, you can go to thunderministries.com/history/triad/onlyone.html

As already discussed with you elsewhere Shawn, I am not defending the Trinity doctrine. I simply am showing the limitations of your theology.

As for the John 10:30 statement, how exactly did Y'shua use it? Have you ever looked at it in context? It just as much be determined that it is based on 'purpose' as it is 'substance'.

You need to stop with these singular verse doctrines. Look at everything as a whole.

m.d.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Bronx,


in answer to your question, oneness theology is not within the mainstream of christianity. Oneness doctrine isn't new either. It has existed in various forms for the better part of two thousand years and is generaly refered to as "monism". Its always been recognized by the mainstream church as a heresy.

By saying this I don't intend to argue that oneness is incorrect (although I think it is), I'm simply giving a factual answer to the question of wether it is "mainstream" or not.

 

[Andrew]

Hear of the term "3-in-1"?

Oneness focuses on the "1" but rejects the "3".

Trinity theology accepts both but focuses more on the "3".

I'd stick to the latter. Afterall, the Bible does mention God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

[rhemarob]

Brothers and Sisters,

I am a recently born-again and I am interested in various pentecostal churches. As some of my wife's family became AOG I have been fortunate to attend worship with them once and while.

Recently I received a very nice book catalog from the United Pentecostal Church and the focus on many of their publications seems to be on 'oneness theology'. My question to you is this: Is oneness theology a way of thinking about the Jesus and the Trinity that is considered outside the mainstream of pentecostal belief? From what I can tell on a few internet sites I've searched it appears that it is.

I would be interested in your opinion.

Warm Regards.

O.K. since you asked my opinion here it is.

Avoid the UPC , oneness is a false teaching and is leading many astray.
If you just use common sense and read your Bible you can easily see that oneness is incorrect.
It is outside of the mainstream pentecostal beliefs.

Was Jesus schizophrenic?
He had to be according the oneness belief since all those times He prayed to the Father, Jesus was actually praying to Himself.

Luke 3:21-22

When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. 22And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."


If oneness is correct your Bible would have to read like this:

When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. 22And He descended in bodily form like a dove upon Himself, and a voice came from heaven which said, "I am Myself; in Myself I am well pleased."

So now Jesus is a schizophrenic ventriloquist?
Not only does He talk to Himself he throws His voice and answers Himself?

Then Jesus descends upon Himself from above and He's not even annointed yet so it must be a really neat magic trick.

Jesus - the schizophrenic, ventriloquist, magician!
No wonder He was so popular!


It just gets more and more ridiculous the more you get into it.

 

[JimB]

From my perspective (Trinitarian), Unitarian (oneness) theology is outside the “mainstream.” If I were Unitarian, I would say just the opposite. Granted, Pentecostal Unitarianism is a breed (hybrid) unto itself, there are many respected Unitarians in history (many of which are accepted as Christian by “mainstream theologs) , as, for example:

Among the respected “Church Fathers,” Unitarians included, most notably, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa.


More modern Unitarians include: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Adlai Stevenson, Howard Taft, Daniel Webster, Clara Barton, Dorothea Dix, Florence Nightingale, Albert Schweitzer, Louisa May Alcott, Ray Bradbury, William Cullen Bryant, Robert Burns, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Charles Dickens, Robert Fulghum, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. & Jr., Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, John Milton, Herman Melville, Paul Newman, Carl Sandberg, Pete Seeger, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Henry David Thoreau, Kurt Vonnegut, John Greenleaf Whittier.


My point is not to defend the theology, but that before we take a hard line on the Trinitarian/Unitarian dispute (as did Trinitarian John Calvin when he burned Unitarian Michael Servetus, at the stake in 1513 for his beliefs), we need to remember that we may be condemning some of our favorite people and some of those who have influenced – directly or indirectly - our lives (and/or faith) for the better.


\o/

 

[rhemarob]

From my perspective (Trinitarian), Unitarian (oneness) theology is outside the “mainstream.” If I were Unitarian, I would say just the opposite. Granted, Pentecostal Unitarianism is a breed (hybrid) unto itself, there are many respected Unitarians in history (many of which are accepted as Christian by “mainstream theologs) , as, for example:

Among the respected “Church Fathers,” Unitarians included, most notably, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa.


More modern Unitarians include: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Adlai Stevenson, Howard Taft, Daniel Webster, Clara Barton, Dorothea Dix, Florence Nightingale, Albert Schweitzer, Louisa May Alcott, Ray Bradbury, William Cullen Bryant, Robert Burns, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Charles Dickens, Robert Fulghum, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. & Jr., Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, John Milton, Herman Melville, Paul Newman, Carl Sandberg, Pete Seeger, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Henry David Thoreau, Kurt Vonnegut, John Greenleaf Whittier.


My point is not to defend the theology, but that before we take a hard line on the Trinitarian/Unitarian dispute (as did Trinitarian John Calvin when he burned Unitarian Michael Servetus, at the stake in 1513 for his beliefs), we need to remember that we may be condemning some of our favorite people and some of those who have influenced – directly or indirectly - our lives (and/or faith) for the better.


\o/

Those people are all great but Jesus was definately a Trinitarian so I'll go with that.

 

[JimB]

Those people are all great but Jesus was definately a Trinitarian so I'll go with that.

I think you missed my point, rr.

 

[Suffolk Sean]

More modern Unitarians include: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Adlai Stevenson, Howard Taft, Daniel Webster, Clara Barton, Dorothea Dix, Florence Nightingale, Albert Schweitzer, Louisa May Alcott, Ray Bradbury, William Cullen Bryant, Robert Burns, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Charles Dickens, Robert Fulghum, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. & Jr., Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, John Milton, Herman Melville, Paul Newman, Carl Sandberg, Pete Seeger, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Henry David Thoreau, Kurt Vonnegut, John Greenleaf Whittier.

Jim,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be more accurate to state that many of these individuals were Deists rather than Christian Unitarians? Or am I trying to split hairs here?

 

[rhemarob]

I think you missed my point, rr.

I don't think I missed your point, its just that I do believe in taking a hard line regarding what is true and what is false and it is my belief that unitarianism is false.
I could care less than some truly great people in history were unitarian,
I'm sure they were sincere but sincerely wrong.
Where they great people that influenced history? Certainly.
Did they make it to heaven? Likely.
Do those two factors matter? No
The Bible says what it says, period.

 

[muffler dragon]

I understand where you're coming from RR. I just wanted to share that it has become much more difficult for me to dial in upon. It's not a matter of questioning Scripture. It's strictly that I find comfort in knowing that G-d is much greater than I and my finite mind can handle. That's why I said earlier in this thread that I am not debating the trinitarian/unitarian positions. I just know that Y'shua is not the Father.

Anyways... just wanted to share a quick thought.
Btw, it's good to see you back. Did you take a hiatus or have I just missed your posts lately?

m.d.

 

[rhemarob]

Anyways... just wanted to share a quick thought.
Btw, it's good to see you back. Did you take a hiatus or have I just missed your posts lately?

m.d.

Been working a lot, trying to make tuition money.

 

[JimB]

I don't think I missed your point, its just that I do believe in taking a hard line regarding what is true and what is false and it is my belief that unitarianism is false.
I could care less than some truly great people in history were unitarian,
I'm sure they were sincere but sincerely wrong.
Where they great people that influenced history? Certainly.
Did they make it to heaven? Likely.
Do those two factors matter? No
The Bible says what it says, period.

Good point and accept your view.

I do believe however that the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing more than our understanding of how God has chosen to reveal himself to us. But, to say that the Trinity is a complete definition of God is to do what we, as humans, always do: attempt to put God inside a box. I always say, God is a Trinity but that’s not all there is to God. He is, IMO, unfathomable, immeasurable. We simply do the best we can with the information He has given us.

However, it is wrong to demonize (which you have not done) those who do not see God as we do.

Truth is like a giant diamond. We only see the facets we see because of our perspective. A facet of a diamond is not the whole diamond, it is just a part of it. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;” (1 Cor. 13.12). Because a Unitarian’s/Oneness’ facet is not the facet I see or understand, does not mean that he/she is wrong. It means, to me, only that they are viewing only one facet of God while I am viewing another.

Does than make any sense?

\o/

 

[rhemarob]

Good point and accept your view.

I do believe however that the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing more than our understanding of how God has chosen to reveal himself to us. But, to say that the Trinity is a complete definition of God is to do what we, as humans, always do: attempt to put God inside a box. I always say, God is a Trinity but that’s not all there is to God. He is, IMO, unfathomable, immeasurable. We simply do the best we can with the information He has given us.

However, it is wrong to demonize (which you have not done) those who do not see God as we do.

Truth is like a giant diamond. We only see the facets we see because of our perspective. A facet of a diamond is not the whole diamond, it is just a part of it. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;” (1 Cor. 13.12). Because a Unitarian’s/Oneness’ facet is not the facet I see or understand, does not mean that he/she is wrong. It means, to me, only that they are viewing only one facet of God while I am viewing another.

Does than make any sense?

\o/

Yes, Pastor Jim (read your profile) that does make sense,
Even though we are both Trinitarian it is a good choice to walk in love towards those that aren't, being right isn't always the point, leaving the door open so others can see more of the truth is.

P.S. Love your posts, Welcome to the forum.

 

[JimB]

P.S. . . . Welcome to the forum.

Actually, I've been on the forum for sometime (formerly Jim B). I messed up this morning (being a computer moron and all) and had to re-register under a new name.



Jim
\o/

 

[BronxBriar]

Thank you all for your considered and thoughtful responses.

 

[Rapha]

The article given at Carm.org is a good one. The Trinity is shown from the very begining of the Bible that God is plural with Genesis 1:26:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

I love that God is not limited to the frame or dimensions of man. Can such awesome power be confined to one body ...?...or what one word or character can be found to wrap around and express all of what and who He is? I am glad that He can be even more that what I can count on my fingers and toes, and I give Him all the glory and trust I can muster with my life. We are made after His image and not visa-versa

 

[Andrew]

"Elohim"

In Hebrew the "im" is the plural suffix, like our "s" in Gods.
---------
Here's a joke:

When Jesus was baptised, God the Father opened the heavens and spoke in an audible voice: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

If Oneness theology is true, then Jesus must have been a ventroliquist.
What about the Holy Spirit descending, which John saw. Well Jesus must have been an illusionist.