Debate topic: “The Father Alone Existed as God Prior To The Incarnation.” Oneness Pentecostalism Evangelist and Apologist Steven Ritchie affirms; Michael Burgos, author of Kiss the Son: A Christological Apology in Response to David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God, denies. This episode contains the complete, 2+ hour debate.
Music
- Wayne Watson, Long Arm of the Lord (LP Version) from the album, How Time Flies, 2008
Promoted Resources
- Rethinking Hell, “Exploring Evangelical Conditionalism”
Episode 118: Long Arm of the Lord [ 2:30:13 | 103.18 MB ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (4607)
Michael Burgos never responded to my arguments out of Isaiah 44:24, John 14:10 and John 14:24 and he gave no valid answers to my points out of Isaiah 53:1, Philippians 2:7, and Hebrews 2:7. Rather than rebutting the inviolable scriptural evidence I presented which prove that the Father created all things by His own Hands in Isaiah 64:8, Malachi 2:10, Isaiah 44:24, Psalm 102:25 and Psalm 8:5-6, he chose to state that Hebrews 2:7 should not state that the Son was “appointed over the works of Your hands (God the Father’s hands)” because it is a textual variant.
I tried to point out the fact that Hebrews 2:7 is a direct quote from Psalm 8:5-6 which states that the Son was “appointed over the works of Your hands” but Michael kept cutting me off with more questions so I did not have time to look up Psalm 8:5-6. Michael also stated that the New American Standard Bible did not use the alleged textual variant but Michael was wrong!
Hebrews 2:7 NASB “You have made him a little lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.”
Mr. Burgos cites the ESV throughout his book so here is Psalm 6:5-6 according to the ESV.
“Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; you have put all things under his feet,”
Since Heb. 2:7 is a quote from Psalm 8:5-6 it is plainly apparent that the author of Hebrews was stating that Jesus was “APPOINTED OVER THE WORKS” of the Father’s “HANDS.”
Mr. Burgos also kept interrupting me when I attempted to quote Psalm 45:6-7 which is the quote used in Hebrews 1:8-9 and Psalm 102:22 -27 which is the quote used in Hebrews 1:10. Psalm 45:6-7 shows that the Father spoke prophetically about His future Son ascending to the throne of David which is called the throne of Yahweh in 1 Chronicles 29:23 but Psalm 102 begins with the prayers of a man (perhaps David) and the passage in context proves that it was not God the Father who was speaking the words in Hebrews 1:10.
Psalm 102:24-25 “So I said: “Do not take me away, MY GOD, in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations. In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
Therefore it was a man who was addressing His God who “in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth …” Again, Mr. Burgos was completely wrong about God the Father addressing the Son in Hebrews 1:10.
NEW TRINITARIAN ARGUMENTS BROUGHT UP BY MICHAEL BURGOS IN THE NOV. 13TH DEBATE. THESE NEW ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPEAR IN HIS BOOK (Kiss The Son) NOR DO THEY APPEAR IN ANY TRINITARIAN DEBATES.
1 – JOHN 8:38 PROVES THAT THE SON WAS IN THE FATHER’S PRESENCE PRIOR TO THE INCARNATION.
“I speak what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”
Where in this verse does it say that the Son was in the Father’s presence prior to his birth? Nowhere! The apostle Paul saw visions and revelations in the Lord even to the point that he was not sure if his spirit had left his body because he was in the presence of God in which he saw a man “caught up to the third heaven.”
2 Corinthians 12:2 “2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
Therefore the Son of God could have also been in the Father’s presence in a similar way after he had been born at Bethlehem.
2 – TIMOTHY 3:16 PROVES THAT “HE” (THE SON) WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.
I have never heard any Trinitarian ever use 1 Timothy 3:16 to try to prove that the Son existed in the Father’s presence before the incarnation. If that were so the text should read that the “SON was manifested in the flesh.” Jesus clearly stated in John 8:24 “if you do not believe that I AM HE, you will die in your sins.” Jesus clearly quoted the words of God the Father in Isaiah 43:10, “… that you may know and believe Me and understand that I AM HE,” Jesus must be that “HE” that was manifested in the flesh in 1 Timothy 3:16.
3 – THE SON HAS TO BE ETERNAL BECAUSE THE FATHER IS ETERNAL
Since the Father is eternal, He could not have always existed all alone because He had to have always had to have been a Father to someone. Therefore Michael Burgos insists that the Father and the Son had to have always existed together throughout eternity past.
WHY THIS ARGUMENTS FAILS:
A. First of all a Father cannot be a Father unless He begets or creates an offspring. That would make the Son a created person rather than an eternal person.
B. Secondly, Yahweh is called our Heavenly Father because He is the Creator. Yet just as an earthly father exists prior to becoming a parent, the Heavenly Father could have always existed as the Self Existent One prior to becoming a father. My three children can call me Dad (a father) but I existed long before I actually became a father. Therefore God the Father could have always eternally existed as Yahweh before becoming a Father.
C. Thirdly, since God “calls those things which do not exist as if they existed (Romans 4:17),” the All Knowing God could have always foreknown that He would create the angels and humanity throughout eternity past before the actual creation took place. In this light we can understand how the title “Everlasting Father” is applied to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6. Jesus is identified as having the Name of the Everlasting Father because He is the full incarnation of that only true God the Father. Thus the Omniscient God might have always known that He would Father creation throughout eternity past so he could have always been the “Eternal Father” prior to creating anything.
D. Fourthly, since 1 Peter 1:20 states that the Son was “FOREKNOWN before the creation of the world,” the Son could not have existed as a Son prior to being “FOREKNOW,” otherwise the language of “foreknowing” becomes meaningless. Wherefore it is possible to believe that the Son was always eternally foreknown throughout eternity past before the Son was actually begotten. Therefore God could have always known and loved His Son and His future elect before they were actually begotten. In this light God the Father could have always been a Father to the Son before the Son’s actual existence because the Son might have always been “foreknown.”
John 5:26 (ESV) proves that no one granted life to the Father but that the Father GRANTED LIFE to the Son: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.” Since the Son was granted life by the Father, the Son could not have always existed as an alleged God the Son as Trinitarians suppose.
Great debate, I enjoyed it very much. , I definitely learned something from both sides of the subject.
It is fascinating that in Mr Ritchie’s above reply that he would criticize Mr Burgos, that some of his arguments were never responded to and no valid answers to his points were given, when he was guilty of the same actions! Smh…
For the most part, I see this as classic, “I understand the passages this way, and you understand it that way!”
But.., what helps some of us determine who’s interpretation/understanding is divinely achieved rather than fleshly. ( If I had to choose) Isn’t so much that both of you didn’t respond at all or appropriately to some positions, but when ones response became far fetched, a rambling stretch, and out of the pale of orthodoxy.
I feel Mr Ritchie did just that with regard to his revelation on the spirit of the Father, the spirit of the Son, and the Holy Spirit points of emphasis he shared.
I have NEVER heard that stuff before, & some of it sounded like he stumbled upon it on the fly during the debate.
Big Red Flag for me!
Tertullian himself called the majority of Christians living around 200 AD Modalistic Monarchians in his book “Against Praxeaus.” The early Modalists believed that God is a single Monarch (One Divine Person) who modally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore they did not deny a plurality to God but they refused to call God three divine persons. Due to God’s infinite omnipresence, God can modally operate as “the arm of Yahweh” revealed to us as a man through His Word and Spirit while remaining only One Self Existent Individual.
Mr. Burgos stated that I never replied to some of the points he made but after reviewing the tape I noticed that there was only one scripture that I failed to give a response too because I could not find the verse again when I sought to bring it up. The text was in John 8:38, “I speak what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” Nothing in this text proves that the Son of God saw anything in the Father’s presence prior to the incarnation. This was only wishful thinking and speculative reasoning by Mr. Burgos.
Mr. Burgos stated that I did not respond to 1 Timothy 3:16 but I briefly did so during cross examination. Mr. Burgos also alleged that I failed to reply to his philosophical speculation that the Father could not have eternally existed as a Father without an eternal Son. After viewing the tape I noticed that I had also briefly responded to that point. The omniscient God may have always known about His creation before that creation actually took place so the Son may have always been eternally foreknown (1 Peter 1:20).
I forgot to mention that Mr. Burgos failed to respond to the scriptural evidence which proves that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. If this be the case then my response out of Ephesians 4:10 and Galatians 4:6 in which the human spirit of the Son went back again to become the omnipresent Holy Spirit which was poured out on the day of Pentecost. That is why the Holy Spirit can intercede within believers because that Spirit is the Spirit who became Christ and returned back as the life giving omnipresent Holy Spirit.
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST
John 14:17-18 “… even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees nor knows HIM, but you know HIM for HE dwells with you and shall be in you. I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU AS ORPHANS, I WILL COME TO YOU.”
2 Corinthians 3:17 “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.”
2 Corinthians 4:5 “… we preach not ourselves but CHRIST JESUS THE LORD.”
2 Cor. 3:17 says “the Lord is the Spirit.” Since Paul identifies Christ Jesus as “THE LORD” in 2 Cor. 4:5, the Lord Jesus must be the life giving Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:21 “… the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men, but holy men spoke as they were moved by THE HOLY SPIRIT.”
1 Peter 1:11 calls that Spirit the Spirit of Christ. “… the Spirit of Christ … was in the prophets, testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow.”
Romans 8:9 “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man have not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of His.”
Luke 1:35 “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; FOR THIS REASON the holy One to be born SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD.”
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit Who incarnated Himself as the human Spirit of Christ.
Colossians 1:27 “Christ in you the hope of glory.”
Now if the Holy Spirit is not a third person of an alleged coequal and coeternal Trinity then the whole Trinitarian doctrine collapses. Therefore the only theology which maintains the full deity of Christ against Arianism (Jesus is a pre-incarnate lesser god) and Socinianism (Jesus is not God) is Oneness Theology which was believed by the majority of Christians during the earliest days of Christianity.
If the Holy Spirit of God incarnated Himself to become the human spirit of Christ and then that human spirit returned back as the omnipresent Holy Spirit then my response out of Ephesians 4:10 and Galatians 4:6 was true and in harmony with the holy writ. No I did not spontaneously make this up as my understanding of the Holy Spirit making intercession for us as the Spirit of Christ is well documented in my literature and in my past debate with Pastor Bruce Bennett. The human spirit of the Son went back again to become the omnipresent Holy Spirit which was poured out on the day of Pentecost. That is why the Holy Spirit can intercede within believers because that Spirit is the Spirit who became Christ and returned back as the life giving omnipresent Holy Spirit.
Since Michael Burgos gave no scriptural rebuttal to the Bible evidence proving that the Holy Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, the whole Trinitarian dogma collapses as a false doctrine. Wherefore, the only theology which brings harmony to the totality of scripture is Oneness Theology.
Brother Ritchie,
You not only failed to (once, as you said yourself) answer one of his questions, & answering now doesn’t clear you of your criticism of him doing something you’ve done yourself. Some credibility lost there my brother.
I started to respond to your points above.
But then something told me you’ve heard and addressed them all in your studies before!
I’m reminded of a passage of scripture that says “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”
Your mind seems to be fully persuaded. And trying to repeat passages that you already have come to a fixed conclusion is obviously futile.
Blessings going forward brother Ritchie.
Great debate. ..,
And again your Holy Spirit theory which you repeated above, (and I thank you cause I can show others) I have never heard before. But also doesn’t sound at all in line with scripture.
Just because many early christian’s may have believed this definitely doesn’t mean it was correct or fundamental. As the apostles had to deal with an abundance of false doctrine. This is well chronicled in scripture.
First of all the language you used like ”
“the Holy Spirit of God incarnated Himself (???) to become the human spirit (???) of Christ (???) and then that human spirit (???) returned back (???) as the omnipresent Holy Spirit” WHAT?!?!?
I’ve never heard language like this before, and it sounded like you made it up on the fly!
It’s sounds like it came from Ritchie 4:6 not Ephesians 4:6
AND also:
“That is WHY the Holy Spirit CAN intercede (???) within believers because that Spirit IS the Spirit who BECAME Christ (???) and RETURNED BACK (???) as the life giving omnipresent Holy Spirit”.
Again, this sounds more like Ritchie 4:26
Just sounds like a different gospel.
I answered all of the questions during cross examination but I failed to address one point that Mr. Burgos made which he said he would bring up during his cross examination time but never did. I had circled the verse in my Bible and then lost it when I tried to bring it up. Next time I will have two Bibles on my desk along with an Interlinear and I will be sure to mark the pages so I don’t lose them when rebutting.
Mr. Burgos spent allot of time falsely alleging that I never responded to most of his points during his closing remarks so I’m not being hypocritical for stating that I did cover most of his points accept one. It was Mr. Burgos who was being hypocritical in accusing me of not addressing his points when he was the one who evaded many of my questions and comments.
I do not claim to have my own interpretation on the Holy Spirit because the Spirit of Christ Himself revealed this truth to me while in prayerful meditation. Many of the earliest Christian writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ who makes intercession for Spirit filled believers. Therefore my teaching on the Holy Spirit is identical with the first century Roman Church. The Shepherd of Hermas reveals that Clement was the Bishop of Rome while Hermas was a prophet during the first century. Hermas is listed in Romans 16:14 and Clement in Philippians 4:3. When we consider that Clement and Hermas of Rome knew Paul, it makes sense to pay attention to their corroborative teachings on the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ.
2Clem 14:2
And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existed not now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she was
spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested in the
last days that He might save us.
NOTICE HOW CLEMENT SPEAKS OF THE CHURCH (called out people) as a “SHE” (THE BRIDE OF CHRIST) WHO EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING along with “JESUS.” THE CONTEXT PROVES THAT JESUS AND GOD’S ELECT EXISTED IN GOD’S MIND/LOGOS (NOT LITERALLY BUT IN THE LAMB’S BOOK OF LIFE). THEREFORE JESUS EXISTED PRIOR TO CREATION JUST AS GOD’S ELECT EXISTED PRIOR TO CREATION, IN THE MIND AND PLAN OF GOD (Revelation 13:8).
“And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (Revelation 17:8).”
2Clem 14:4
But if we say that the flesh is the Church and THE SPIRIT IS CHRIST,
then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wantonly
with the Church. Such and one therefore shall not partake OF THE SPIRIT, WHICH IS CHRIST.
2Clem 14:5
So excellent is the life and immortality which this flesh can receive
as its portion, if THE HOLY SPIRIT be joined to it. No man can declare or tell those things which the Lord hath prepared for His elect.
NOTICE HOW CLEMENT SPEAKS OF THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST AS THE INDWELLING SPIRIT AND THEN IN VERSE 5 CLEMENT CALLS THAT SPIRIT THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Quasten quotes Parable 5:6:5-7 of the Shepherd of Hermas, which pertains to the work’s Christology:
“The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by himself. This flesh, in which dwelt the Holy Spirit, served the Spirit well in all purity and all sanctity without ever inflicting the least stain upon it.”
“After I had written down the commandments and similitudes of the Shepherd, the Angel of repentance, he came to me and said, ‘I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit that spoke with you in the form of the Church showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God.’ (IX, 1).”
Clement and Hermas lived while some of the apostles were still alive so I encourage all to keep an open heart and mind to hear what the Spirit says to His people.
I’m going to be rereading Hermas, Clement, Ignatius, Melito, and most of the post apostolic fathers in preparation for my church history debate with Catholic apologist William Albrecht on Trinitarianism in church history. I’m going to prove that the Trinitarian doctrine developed and that the vast majority of Christians were not Trinitarians during the early days of Christianity.
Mr Ritchie,
Now I see why & where you get your doctrine. I really appreciate your patience & time with me regarding my response.
It’s been educating. It’s good to know from what foundation a person gets their doctrine!
🙂
I stand on the true foundation of God’s holy apostles and prophets. The NT scripture proves that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, John 14:17-18, 2 Corinthians 3:17). I quote from the immediate apostolic fathers who were in fellowship with the original apostles only to back up the scriptural foundation which proves that Jesus is the full incarnation of the Spirit of the only true God (John 17:3) and not an alleged third God Person of a 3 person deity. For Jesus said, “I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does the works (John 14:10).”
“Many are called but few are chosen;” yet the seed of God’s righteous Word will take root in the hearts of God’s elect.
Mr Richie please answer this question for me. If Jesus is the Father, that is a statement of personal identification, then how can he say what he says in John 14:28?
It is clear studying Jewish history they (Jews) only believed in One God (Absolute). It would be a sin to think otherwise according to their teaching. They believe in One (Absolute) God. Try to convince a Jew, not Christian, of the Trinity. You will find that to be impossible.
“Trinity” is not in the bible. “Three Persons” not in the bible. “God the Son” not in the bible, but Son of God is there. “Eternal Son” not in the bible. Many of the words used to describe the doctrine of Trinity is just not in the bible. This doctrine is only in there by implication, but I can make many doctrines true using this same method. There are Seven Spirits of God in Revelation 3 & 4. Are these seven persons of God.
I’ve had a conversation at length with a minister of this persuasion, and I’ll be honest, their arguments were compelling. At the end though, it is derived from ambiguous text which can be interpreted differently based on one’s personal assumptions. If you assume that the Son must pre-exist the incarnation due to an unclear passage of scripture, then you will come to the conclusion that the Son is eternal. My point is that interpretation is based primarily on ones starting point.
The Jews never believed in the Trinity. If this were a true doctrine, why did the apostles never address it? If God all of a sudden revealed a part of Himself never before seen, wouldn’t it raise questions? Yet we never find His divine nature questioned. This would have been a radical change of perspective for the Jews. Someone would have had this conversation unless they never believed in a Triune God. This is why our doctrine exists, because we start at the Old Testament for the foundation of our belief.
I do find it confusing when people bring up Gen. 1:26 as a defense of the Trinity. How can “us” and “our” explain a monotheistic God? There are alternative views out there. As far as this subject is concerned, how can finite man truly fully understand an infinite God? The important thing is to follow after what is clear in scripture, and that is His character which has been revealed to us through Christ Jesus our Lord.
God bless!
It is apparent here that Micahel did not fair well and holds to a tritheism view of three personages as separate beings each a god and not the one true God and Father.
Trinitarians cannot find their kind in the Bible or their doctrine and the 2nd century either, He must wait till the 3rd century to find any of his ilk among the gentile paganists of Hellenistic thought in late writings, not the Bible.
IN THE PRECIOUS NAME OF JESUS,
BOB JAMES
to John Bray a person who neither believes in Oneness or the Trinity.
You apparently don’t understand the Bible, that Jesus in JOHN 14:28 is speaking from his human nature as a man about the FATHER and GOD being greater than the perfect sinless man as it should be.
Jesus who possesses two natures and which are distinct from one another can speak as a man or as the Deity which indwelt the man the Christ.
It is you who cannot explain the passage, with your neither Oneness is true or the Trinity, because you hold a false view and simply cannot explain what the three individuals in your false doctrine are, be they beings, persons, whatever!
IN THE PRECIOUS NAME OF JESUS,
BOB JAMES
Oneness Truth, Trinity Heresy
to Steve Ritchie, I would be glad to go over any points you may have regarding the early ANF writings, you will find that Tertullian was a minority view and considered a heretic, that Hippolytus had a very small church 9 about 50 people according to some sources I saw, I believe Harnack stated that],(though his writings were found).
Hermas was the half brother of Pius a Bishop and no Bishop is a known Trinitarian till Urban 222 a.d. AFTER MONARCHIAN, AND hERMAS SPOKE OF BAPTISM in the name of the Lord.
BISHOPS…ELETHERUS, VICTOR, ZEPHRYNIUS, AND CALLISTUS were considered by Harnack to be Monarchians.
J.N.D. KELLY stated that the Monarchians antedated the Apologist Trinitarians.
It is obvious that IGNATIUS according to Virginia Corwin and William Schoedel was a Monarchian, as well as Clement, Polycarp, Iraneaus (see Kenneth Scott Lattorette Church history), Noetus, Praxeas, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Sabellius were Monarchian/Oneness.
i AM ON DELPHI BOARDS ONENESS TRUTH, TRINITY HERESY.
BOB JAMES
I made my first post prier to listening to the debate. I did learn something. Trinity views Everlasting Father different than the Oneness movement. Here is what I mean.
Trinity: “Everlasting” describes Father
Oneness: “Everlasting” “Father” describes God
I would not agree that the title “Father” has to exist all eternity. Everlasting can be both quantitative or qualitative. It doesn’t just have to mean that God existed as the Father for all of eternity. It could be interpreted as another attribute of God’s qualities. He is both Everlasting and the Father. This in itself would not win a debate.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
It is interesting in this passage that it seems to suggest that the child or son would be called the Everlasting Father; among other names. In this debate it was mentioned by both how they had to change plain text to insert their belief. How does one change son from its most basic meaning into a person within the Godhead? Son is a relational term and relates to the incarnation of God in Christ. Father is relational in that God is Father of all things living and created. Could God have pre-existed Father? I say, why not? Everlasting doesn’t have to describe Father, but they both have to describe God.
I can be a good father, but this does not mean I was always good, nor does it mean I was always a father. Could I have been good before becoming a father? Sure! Both do not have to exist for all eternity to assert that one does. I can be good without being a father. I also can be a father without being good. Likewise, love does not have to be on display in order for love to exist. If one suggests that the Trinity must be in order for God to have Love before time and creation is to suggest in more than one God. (As if they were hanging out) God is alone! There is no one like Him.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to me that the word “God” is used in your doctrine (Trinity) a lot like we would use the word “humanity” is in our language. We are one humanity but many persons within that humanity. We all are flesh and blood, made of the same essence, but distinct in character or qualities, but still can be called one humanity; just as God is one. The only real difference, I can see, is you would say that their nature is the same. How else can three be one? These are real concerns I have with that doctrine, please respond.
If the Son came down from heaven literally, is he omnipresent? This is why John the Baptist could hear the Father, see the Holy Spirit, and be with the Son all at the same time. God does not need to be three to manifest Himself as such. He is everywhere. He can be made known to me here and someone else clear across the world at the same time in different ways.
croweupc@gmail.com
God bless!
Hello,
Whoever said, “to John Bray a person who neither believes in Oneness or the Trinity. You apparently don’t understand the Bible, that Jesus in JOHN 14:28 is speaking from his human nature as a man about the FATHER and GOD being greater than the perfect sinless man as it should be.”
To whoever you are… So when Jesus is speaking from his human nature he is no longer the Father right?
Whoever sais again, “Jesus who possesses two natures and which are distinct from one another can speak as a man or as the Deity which indwelt the man the Christ.”
Which ONE is Jesus?
Whoever said, “It is you who cannot explain the passage, with your neither Oneness is true or the Trinity, because you hold a false view and simply cannot explain what the three individuals in your false doctrine are, be they beings, persons, whatever!”
Whoever you are… you are incorrect.
When Jesus speaks from his human nature, he is speaking as a man, not GOD AND THE FATHER..
The Oneness view is the only right view, not your tritheist/Arianist combo view.
See I can take a stand and defend that a man spoke and about his God and Father, for the man had a Father which was Spirit, Spirit is not flesh, God is Spirit.
YOU ARE WRONG AND CANNOT EXPLAIN YOUR VIEW, which is rather niggardly on your part, but what can we expect?
Have no real view and a false one and anythings you blather is OK!
Oneness theology does not deny the full and true humanity of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 2:17 proves that the man Christ Jesus was “made like his brethren.” The Greek text means “exactly like” all men which is why the NIV translates the verse as “FULLY HUMAN IN EVERY WAY.” Since the only true God the Father entered into a new existence as a fully complete man, He had to become a human spirit with an ability to pray and to be tempted by the Devil. That is why Jesus stated in John 14:28, “My Father is greater than I.
Isaiah 7:10-14 proves that the miraculous sign of the virgin conceiving and bearing a human son would be an inexplicable miracle. For how exactly could the only true God of heaven and earth become a man who would be called “God with us (Immanuel)?” Just as no one can scientifically explain how the sun stood still for Joshua or how Jesus rose from the dead after three days and three nights of putrefaction, so now man can fully articulate the miracle of the incarnation when God became a man to save us.
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS IS A FIRST CENTURY BOOK
The historical evidence proves that Hermas lived and wrote the Shepherd of Hermas within the first century because the Shepherd of Hermas itself states that Clement was the Bishop of Rome at the time that the Shepherd of Hermas was completed. There is not a shred of evidence to show that there was another Bishop of Rome named Clement within the first few centuries. The reference to Clement of Rome suggests a date within the first century. Furthermore the apostle Paul sent greetings to a Hermas, a Christian of Rome (Romans 16:14) during the first century.
The scholar John A. T. Robinson makes a detailed argument that in fact Shepherd was written before AD 85. This is because
a) All the canonical New Testament books predate the fall of Jerusalem in AD.70, according to Robinson’s detailed prior thesis in his book.b) Irenaeus quotes it as scripture in “Against Heresy” (c. 180) thus undermining the testimony of the Muratorian fragment, which, if believed, would place it during the bishopric in Rome of Pius (140–155). Irenaeus would not count a 2nd-century text as scripture.c) Tertullian, in De Pudicitia (c. 215) strongly disparages Hermas, but without mentioning the late composition which would have fatally undermined its canonicity.d) Origen freely cites Hermas as scripture, and in his Commentary on Romans attributes it to the Hermas of Rom.16:14 (an identification supported by Coleborne [14]).e) The internal evidence of Vision 2.4.2 refers to Clement, apparently before he became Bishop of Rome, for which Robinson cites in support G. Edmundson’s Bampton lectures of 1913. Edmundson dates Hermas c. 90 on the basis that Clement became Bishop of Rome in 92. Robinson states that there is no reason to suppose that this reference is a pseudonymous fiction. Robinson discounts the testimony of the Muratonian fragment, saying that for no other book should its unsupported evidence be taken seriously, and it is full of palpable mistakes.
HERMAS TAUGHT THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS CHRIST
Quasten quotes Parable 5:6:5-7 of the Shepherd of Hermas, which pertains to the work’s Christology:
“The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by himself. This flesh, in which dwelt the Holy Spirit, served the Spirit well in all purity and all sanctity without ever inflicting the least stain upon it.”
“After I had written down the commandments and similitudes of the Shepherd, the Angel of repentance, he came to me and said, ‘I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit that spoke with you in the form of the Church showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God.’ (IX, 1).”
The Shepherd of Hermas was quoted as scripture by many of the second and third century writers like Irenaeus and Origen. It almost made its way into the NT but was rejected because it clearly teaches Monarchianism (Oneness Theology), the belief that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the only true God who became Christ.
Hello,
Whoever said, “When Jesus speaks from his human nature, he is speaking as a man, not GOD AND THE FATHER..”
But IS HE God the Father? If not you have two named Jesus theology and that heresy!
Whoever said, “The Oneness view is the only right view, not your tritheist/Arianist combo view.’
Straw man!
Whoever said, “See I can take a stand and defend that a man spoke and about his God and Father, for the man had a Father which was Spirit, Spirit is not flesh, God is Spirit.”
No your NOT defending anything because you still refuse to answer the question. Is the Jesus speaking here God the Father. That’s one.
Whoever said, “YOU ARE WRONG AND CANNOT EXPLAIN YOUR VIEW, which is rather niggardly on your part, but what can we expect?
Have no real view and a false one and anythings you blather is OK!”
Straw man!
Blessings.
Hello Mr Ritchie,
Thank you for trying to respond. But there is an issue with you response right here, as you said, “Since the only true God the Father entered into a new existence as a fully complete man, He had to become a human spirit with an ability to pray and to be tempted by the Devil. That is why Jesus stated in John 14:28, “My Father is greater than I.” When the Father enters into a “new existence” does he change into something that is not God? That is the question.
The scriptures teach that Jesus is fully man with a human spirit, soul, and body (Hebrews 2:17/1 Timothy 2:5). That is how he was able to pray and to be tempted. When God the Father entered into a fully human existence, He never lost His true identity as God. He did not become another entity as another person who is not God but He entered into a new existence as God with us as a fully complete human being (Matthew 1:23 / Luke 1:35) called the Son of God. That is why He said, “Before Abraham was I AM (John 8:58)” and “He that has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:7-9).” For although He is fully man via incarnation, He who became that man is the Word and Spirit of God the Father “manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit … and received up into glory (1 Timothy 3:16).”
Oneness folk are very interesting. Mr. Richie surely loves to mention the Bible does not say “three persons” or “Yahweh, you are our holy spirit, you are our son” or “God the Son” and I say, who cares? I have never heard a Trinitarian say “God persons” or “three personed deity” which is a strawman. Strawman argument, a Trinitarian would never say that there are three Fathers. Heb. 2:7 should be taken in context with all of Hebrews which shows the Son’s agency in creation and dialogue between the Father and the Son.
Anyways yeah, I am glad I heard this. I have realized the validity of the Trinity! Thanks for the debate gentleman!
trinitarians have “god the son” or jr. animating a flesh suit. it is that simple. the dialogue? is between the one man and God who incarnated the man. Unlike the trinity doctrine where god the son is making fake prayers to his arch multiple personality. Hey trins, how and why can you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven but you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven? It is because there is distinction being made as to his genuine humanity.
You trins from carm are brave hiding behind your keyboard but you would never actually debate anyone. JWBll and Beukeboom and all4him not a one of you have anything.
The sons agency in creation was because of the incarnation. The incarnation made him the creator even though he was not back there. That is why Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. That flesh you deny!
I want to respond to Manuel’s comments
He says, “trinitarians have “god the son” or jr. animating a flesh suit. it is that simple. the dialogue? is between the one man and God who incarnated the man. Unlike the trinity doctrine where god the son is making fake prayers to his arch multiple personality.”
That is a strawman argument. He says that the Son makes false prayers but in all truth his Jesus makes false prayers! If Jesus is the Father and the Son then Jesus is in essence praying to Himself, he may give the illusion of the Father being distinguished from Him because He prays to, loves, and knows him but it’s an a false dialogue if He Himself is the Father! We never make such a statement. The person who is Jesus Christ, the Son prays to the Father and btw this Son preexisted His birth in Bethlehem(John 6:38, 17:5). What a misrepresentation that Manuel made against us. We can dismiss his fallacy
He says, ” Hey trins, how and why can you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven but you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven? It is because there is distinction being made as to his genuine humanity.” I don’t see how this supports his position or goes against mine. for blasphemy on the Spirit, see the excellent article on tektonics.org for a thorough analysis
He says, “the sons agency in creation was because of the incarnation. The incarnation made him the creator even though he was not back there. That is why Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. That flesh you deny!”
The biblical text of John 1:3,10;1st Cor. 8:6;Col. 1:15-17;Heb. 1:3;10 do not say that Son was the agent of creation because of the incarnation, all of these text, read them as they are, not what you want them to be, presuppose the Son’s preexistence and agency in creation and distinction from the Father. How can he be made the Creator if He was never actually in the beginning creating? That is absurd. Another strawman. No Trinitarian denies the genuine humanity of Jesus Christ, we believe the Son was born(Gal 4:4) but guess what, you’ll never find a statement that says the Father was born which would support his position, but no statement is in the bible. Once again, the oneness folk can only make an argument against a strawman. In Jesus name.
No all4him, you do not know Oneness doctrine. It is not matter of 2 persons it is matter of the false polytheistic doctrine of 2 persons of God. Which are 2 gods….I did not contradict myself! Barnes contradicts himself. Did you not hear me give the passage in Hebrews 9:15 that he is the mediator by the means of death.James White himself admitted 2 Cor.5:19 can mean God was inside of christ. Go back and listen. Like I said you are brave commenting on carm where I cannot defend myself and allow your comments to go unchecked.
So then Mr. Washington, you have 1 god praying to the other god? True or false? If there is only one God how is your god not talking to himself? Natures do not pray! People do! In oneness we have one genuine man/the son praying to the one god of heaven who both incarnated him and was still in heaven on his throne at the same time… 2 persons of God is confusion. 3 persons of God are 3 gods just like the hindu 3 persons are 3 gods…That is why trinity is straight up polytheism. If not then the hindu 3 persons are not 3 gods either. I really do not care about what statements you make it is the logical conclusion of your false doctrine. I am not going to read an argument against my argument on blasphemy I want you to answer and i did not expect you to give one because in the four years I have given it I have not had one answer against it from a trin yet! I had a debate against James White yesterday on the very subject of pre-existence and he could prove such and neither can you.
If your going to respond to me, have the respect to name by the name shown. My last name is Wilson.
You say, “So then Mr. Washington, you have 1 god praying to the other god? True or false? If there is only one God how is your god not talking to himself? ”
Another strawman, your language of one god praying to another god implies ditheism, but I am a monotheist buddy! Nice try there..I see the Word who was with the God, and was God become flesh, living on earth as a man, expressing His love to the Father as a human being. The Son is praying to the Father. I never said natures pray. I never made such an absurd statement so you’ve attacked a strawman.
You say, “In oneness we have one genuine man/the son praying to the one god of heaven who both incarnated him and was still in heaven on his throne at the same time… 2 persons of God is confusion. 3 persons of God are 3 gods just like the hindu 3 persons are 3 gods…That is why trinity is straight up polytheism. If not then the hindu 3 persons are not 3 gods either.”
In trinitarianism we have the Word/the Son who geniunely became man and prays to His Father, the one God in heaven. You committed the fallacy of a faulty analogy(and just made an assertion). The hindu religion presupposes polytheism, the Trinity presupposes monotheism. I see no argument in this statement for your supposed conclusion buddy.
You say, “I really do not care about what statements you make it is the logical conclusion of your false doctrine. I am not going to read an argument against my argument on blasphemy I want you to answer and i did not expect you to give one because in the four years I have given it I have not had one answer against it from a trin yet! I had a debate against James White yesterday on the very subject of pre-existence and he could prove such and neither can you.”
I heard no argument honestly Mr I just heard many assertions and corrected your strawman arguments. James White, in my opinion, did very well. As the Son says in John 17. 5 who shows that He preexisted shows that He existed before His birth. Read the passage without prior theological convictions and it says the truth!
Bless ya
If you are not a polytheist and you are a monotheist then you need to explain and tell us how your doctrine of 3 persons of the trinity are different than the the persons of hindu 3 persons? Can you do that? Did you do that? No, on all counts! You simply said no it is not polytheism. How is not the exact same thing? Saying no it is not does nothing for anyone, that is not a defense against my sound assertion against your doctrine. You need to tell us why it is not and not just claim it is not. We both claim orthodoxy but going back and forth say no you are not, and yes you are is not an argument or defense. The trinity claims monotheism but I claim it is polytheism the same polytheism of the hindus. Now what? Are going to say no it is not? If someone claimed something against me like that I would explain why it is not so.
I gave an argument of why can you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven and blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven. The way you answer this tells us much about your doctrine.You ignored.
I also gave an argument to Dr. White in our discussion I really do not think you or he either one understands. Jesus used the same literal language he used in verse 22 as he did in John 17:5. he told the disciples that he gave them his glory in the past tense(The glory he had with the father) now how is that possible with your understanding of John 17:5?
Hello Sir,
You said, ” When God the Father entered into a fully human existence, He never lost His true identity as God. He did not become another entity as another person who is not God but He entered into a new existence as God with us as a fully complete human being (Matthew 1:23 / Luke 1:35) called the Son of God.”
Would you say that when Jesus entered into a new existence he never lost his identity as the Father? Which logically follows from your statements. If so then you have not explained to me the answer to the question but have merely kicked the can down the street. Could you try again please.
You say “If you are not a polytheist and you are a monotheist then you need to explain and tell us how your doctrine of 3 persons of the trinity are different than the the persons of hindu 3 persons? Can you do that? Did you do that? No, on all counts! You simply said no it is not polytheism. How is not the exact same thing?” I could do it honestly but you already have the assumption that it is three gods and I would rather not waste my time but as I have told you. Hinduism and Christianity have two completely different conceptual frameworks, the former is polytheism, the latter monotheism. I realy do want to explain to you the difference but as I said you already assume it’s tritheism which would make my efforts fruitless
You say, “Saying no it is not does nothing for anyone, that is not a defense against my sound assertion against your doctrine. You need to tell us why it is not and not just claim it is not. We both claim orthodoxy but going back and forth say no you are not, and yes you are is not an argument or defense. The trinity claims monotheism but I claim it is polytheism the same polytheism of the hindus. Now what? Are going to say no it is not? If someone claimed something against me like that I would explain why it is not so.” As far as I know, there is no such thing as a “sound assertion”, only sound arguments which you haven’t given me honestly. You need to tell us how Jesus is the Father yet the bible repeatedly and consistently distinguishes Him from the Father! I would love to explain Trinitarian monotheism to you but as I said your assumption of it being analogous to Tritheism wouldn’t convince you. Your claim that is polytheism, that it is an analogy to the 3 gods of hinduism is the fallacy of faulty analogy, you committed an error in reasoning thus your argument is weak.
You say, “I gave an argument of why can you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven and blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven. The way you answer this tells us much about your doctrine.You ignored.”
You didn’t give an argument, you asked a question! I answered that it does not support or refute either of our positions and referred you to the website above.
You say, “I also gave an argument to Dr. White in our discussion I really do not think you or he either one understands. Jesus used the same literal language he used in verse 22 as he did in John 17:5. he told the disciples that he gave them his glory in the past tense(The glory he had with the father) now how is that possible with your understanding of John 17:5?”
The first thing is that God the Father’s glory is in glorifying and loving the Son and those to whom He has given to Him. Read John 17. John 17:22 of the Son giving us the same glory is a graceful invitation to share in the love and unity of the Father and the Son, but the real issue is that you deny the lord Jesus words sir, the Son explicitly says, “Now Father glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” The difference between the glory given to us men, and the Son, is that we have been given this glory whereas the Son had this before His birth, in fact, before the world began! Us men cannot claim to have had personal divine glory with the Father before the world was created, and neither can the Son if He is just a man, only if the Son is a preexistent divine Son can this claim be true. You assert the Son began to exist at birth. the Son says He had glory before the world began with the Father. I’ll rather believe Jesus then you buddy.
Thanks
Rolling of eyes… Never mind. I will stick to debating you guys elsewhere instead of these pathetic comment boards where you trins are evasive and elusive and run away from everything. All we are doing is spinning our wheels and you excuse your self by claiming strawman.
I respect your commitment to monotheism but Trinitarianism does not contradict monotheism! I never ran away or evaded anything, I just told you why I would rather not waste my time in certain issues I claimed strawman arguments because that is what I have seen Mr. God bless you
Here is my response to John Bray’s question: “Would you say that when Jesus entered into a new existence he never lost his identity as the Father? Which logically follows from your statements. If so then you have not explained to me the answer to the question but have merely kicked the can down the street. Could you try again please.”
I did not say that Jesus entered into a new existence, I said that the only true God the Father entered into a new existence as a fully complete man. Therefore after the incarnation, the man Christ Jesus never lost his true identity as “God with us” by becoming “fully human in every way (Hebrews 2:17).” Isaiah 7:10-14 proves that the virgin begetting a Son called “Immanuel (God with us)” would be a miracle. Can any man explain any of the major miracles of the Bible? So also is the miracle of God becoming a genuine man who prayed and was tempted. Just as we must have faith in the miracle of the resurrection, so we must have faith in the miracle of the incarnation, when the only true God became a man to save us. No man can fully articulate a miracle!
Brother Culwell’s comments about Jesus praying as a genuine man and not as another coequal God the Son person are scripturally accurate. Trinitarians need to take a serious look at the post incarnational relationship between the Father and the Son. Since there is no pre-incarnational relationship between the Father and the Son found in the Hebrew scriptures, we know that 2 Samuel 7:14 proves that the Father and Son relationship could not have actually occurred prior to the Son’s begetting. “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a son” Hebrews 1:5 is a direct quote from 2 Samuel 7:14.
I’m interested in hearing the debate between brother Culwell and James White. Does anyone have a link to this debate? I have four more debates lined up with Trinitarian apologists. How did Manuel Culwell obtain a debate with Dr. White?
Brother Ritchie, Here is the link:http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/11/24/oneness-mini-debatefurther-response-to-derek-frank/
I have known Dr. White for years by calling into his program. We had a forty-five minute debate on his program with four passages.
Mr. Wilson, there was nothing found on the tektonics site that I could find that answered my question. “Why can you blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven and blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven.” This argument highlights the very false doctrine of coequal God persons. If you have a link can you please give the link to the very article for my review?
Hello,
Mr. Ritchie said, “I did not say that Jesus entered into a new existence, I said that the only true God the Father entered into a new existence as a fully complete man. Therefore after the incarnation, the man Christ Jesus never lost his true identity as “God with us” by becoming “fully human in every way (Hebrews 2:17).””
So when the Father enters into a new existence, is that new existence still the Father or something else?
Just as Brother Culwell pointed out the genuine humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ when our Savior said that men can be forgiven after blaspheming the Son of God (the MAN) but could not be forgiven after blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God (the Spirit of the Father), so there is a definite distinction between God as God outside of the incarnation (the omnipresent Father) and God as man inside of the incarnation (the human Son). For there is “ONE GOD and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).”
John Bray asked, “So when the Father enters into a new existence, is that new existence still the Father or something else?
I very carefully said that the Father entered into a new existence as a man but I never said that the Father became a new entity beside Himself. The God of Israel Himself used anthropomorphic language (attributing human attributes to God) so that we finites can understand the Oneness of His Being. The only true God our Father (John 17:3) repeatedly spoke of Himself as having “one face,” “one mouth,” “one nose,” and only one “right hand.” Exodus 15:3 anthropomorphically calls Yahweh “… a man of war: Yahweh is his name.” Likewise Isaiah 53:1 proves that Jesus Christ our Savior is “the arm of Yahweh” revealed to us as “God with us” as a man. So even in the incarnation God spoke anthropomorphically as One divine individual, not three! Therefore we must believe that Jesus is the full incarnation of the Father or we will die in our sins.
Isaiah 43:10 “You are My witnesses, declares Yahweh, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I AM HE.”
Jesus himself cited the words of God the Father in Isaiah 43:10 when he said, “if you do not believe that I AM HE, you will die in your sins (John 8:24).” Since God the Father clearly said, “My servant whom I have chosen,” in Isaiah 43:10, Jesus was clearly informing us that He is that “I AM HE” when he cited the words of God the Father in John 8:24.
“So when the Father enters into a new existence, is that new existence still the Father or something else?”
When God the Father entered into a new existence as a real and genuine human being, He retained His true identity as the only true God the Father as “the arm of Yahweh” revealed.
“He that has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:7-9
“The word that you hear is not mine, but the Father’s. John 14:24
“The words that I speak, I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me, He does the works.” John 14:10
Jesus Christ is still “a stone of stumbling and rock of offense” because people are still stumbling over the word, “being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed.”
“These things have I spoken in figurative language (veiled speech); but the hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in veiled speech but will tell you plainly of the Father.” John 16:25
“Truly you are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, the Savior.” Isaiah 45:15
The seed of God’s righteous Word will take root in the hearts of His true elect. For the true bride of Christ will know who her husband really is!
I commend Brother Manuel Cullwel for an excellent job against the Trinitarian dogma of James White. I encourage all to listen to the mini debate between Manuel Cullwel and James White. I truly believe that brother Cullwel won this mini debate. Thank you brother Cullwel and may God bless your ministry.
Here is the link: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/11/24/oneness-mini-debatefurther-response-to-derek-frank/
Thank you Brother Ritchie and may God bless your ministry also! To God be the glory to further His Kingdom.
Oneness = Heresy
I have NEVER, EVER heard any Oneness interpretation of Genesis 1:26,27 or John 1:1-3 that comes close to being convincing. Oneness folk always a question to avoid the question.
The problem is these passages pretty much need no interpretation as the terms are crystal clear.
LET US MAKE, IN OUR IMAGE, then the verse that follows says God made man. In his image. Then John says the WORD WAS GOD, the WORD WITH GOD.
Verse 14 clarified who the Word was.
Oneness = Heresy
Trinity equals polytheism… 3 persons of god are 3 gods like the hindu 3 persons are 3 gods… No way around it…
Mike wrote:”I have NEVER, EVER heard any Oneness interpretation of Genesis 1:26,27 or John 1:1-3 that comes close to being convincing.”
Funny, I was thinking the very same thing about trinitarians concerning those two passages. their interpretation of those two passages are straight up polytheism.
What the trinitarains do to those passages is what every trinitarain does is vacuum isolate with shallow gloss to proof text thoughtlessly to contradict themselves shamelessly. There is not a trinitarain anywhere who can defend those two passages into the meaning they give them. I guarantee you have never heard my view of those two passages which makes your view look very bad!
Mike why did Paul in 2nd Tim. 2:17 use the beloved term logos in John 1:1 and use it of of two false teachers namely: Hymeneus and Philetus and soil beloved term of the Messiah? Hmmmm? Can you tell us? Did not Paul know like the superior trinitarain that term was exclusive of the pre-existent messiah? Or was it a common usage and meaning that the Apostles already recognized? I do not think you know with your very bad interpretation of John 1:1.
You have an even worse interpretation Genesis 1:26. God was not speaking with the Angels in Genesis 1:26 even though the Jews gave that interpretation. What God was doing was already giving us a view inot our coming redemption through the coming incarnation and included the man or only begotten son even though he was not back there. Read Romans 5:14 that says he was not back and Adam was made in his image even though he was not back there. The creation is credited to the son born of Mary. yeah not one of you can defend your bad interpretation that contradicts scripture.Wink!
Oneness = Heresy
Manuel Culwell,
I’m far from a prophet but you continue to make me sound prophetic by asking a question because you can’t answer the question, just as I said you would.
Your interpretation as well as every Oneness person I’ve heard is VERY flawed an carnal.
Also:
Stop quoting Trinitarians off the street. Lol.., i know Its part of the lie of Oneness propaganda to say Trinitarian doctrine says the angels were the US, OUR in Genesis 1:26.
The scriptures does not say the Angels were created in God’s Image & likeness!
I said no such thing that you said or teach:” the angels were the Us and Our in Genesis 1:26″ The Jews have traditionally taught that and reject God was talking to god persons. We do not teach that he was speaking to the Angels either.. Some of us have taught that God; in the presence of the angels informed the angels. As for answering a question I saw no question that you asked of any relevance. Sir,You are a prophet alright, but not a prophet that tells any truth where scripture is concerned. Michael, I really do not care what you consider as a carnal interpretation of scripture with the shallow gloss that trins give concerning John 1:1 and Genesis 1:26. In a debate you would not fare very well at all with any of your interpretations of those two passages.
Do you really think we cannot see what you see of those two passages? You consider us as heretics, correct Michael? If we can see the same thing you see as heretics then how is it spiritual? Almost every denomination views it like you do.It is not a spiritual meaningful interpretation of those scriptures you give it is a carnal thoughtless gloss. It contradicts the monotheism of the bible and is blatant polytheism. That is why we reject it. Now what is your question?
all4him/Michael, I need no help with my view! Like I said; you are very brave hiding behind your keyboard and trying to come here when you know I cannot answer you on carm.
One more thing the first time a trinitarian tried to say:” that I teach God was talking to the angels” and focused upon something I do not believe, the debate would be over for that person! Because that persons did no homework just like you did not!
A person who is baptized in Jesus name and does not receive the Holy Ghost has not been born again. Paul asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Letting us know that no you do not automatically receive the Spirit when you believe, otherwise Paul simply would have asked the followers of John the Baptist (whom he had no idea who they were) have you believed? He did not ask them that now did he?
Predictable excuse not to answer my question AGAIN..,
If anyone’s questions have no relevance its definitely yours.
No one with any pure understanding of scripture can easily recognize how flawed your Oneness interpretation is. You’re understanding is carnal.
Like I tell the many “Black Israelites” i come across, why do you demand to be called the “true Israel” of scripture, when (unless you are the remnant God reserved), you are said to be blind, stiff necked, & cut off?
You Oneness guys quote what the Jews believed, and scripture says they were cut off for their unbelief. And I’m suppose to believe you because you mention them?
The scriptures said many things weren’t even revealed to Israel. The mysteries of Christ, godliness, the kingdom, many are still blind to this day.
So what makes you so sure your Jew name dropping doesn’t include blind Jews?
The Jews believed that Jesus had incriminated himself by making himself equal with God. Oneness folk believe God has no equal. You have shown yourselves to be as clueless as the Jews you reference!
Predictable excuse not to answer my question AGAIN..,
If anyone’s questions have no relevance its definitely yours.
Anyone with any pure understanding of scripture can easily recognize how flawed your Oneness interpretation is. You’re understanding is carnal.
Like I tell the many “Black Israelites” I come across, why do you demand to be called the “true Israel” of scripture, when (unless you are the remnant God reserved), you are said to be blind, stiff necked, & cut off?
You Oneness guys quote what the Jews believed, and scripture says they were cut off for their unbelief.
And I’m suppose to believe you because you mention them?
The scriptures said many things weren’t even revealed to Israel. The mysteries of Christ, godliness, the kingdom, many are still blind to this day.
So what makes you so sure your Jew name dropping doesn’t include blind Jews?
The Jews believed that Jesus had incriminated himself by making himself equal with God. Oneness folk believe God has no equal. You have shown yourselves to be as clueless as the Jews you reference!
Predictable excuse not to answer your question? What question and what excuse i gave no excuse and i see no question… Give a question and stop stalling..You trins quote what the pagan polytheists quote! trinity is just like the 3 persons of Hindus who had 3 persons who are 3 gods. Now what is your question?
Jew name dropping where did that come from? I do not even know what that means.
One God would have no equal! Thank you for admitting trinity is polytheism.. What those Jews saw with their carnal eyes was a man making himself equal to god which was a sin because God had no equal!
Are you trying to tell us the Jews did not know who they worshiped when Jesus said they did? John 4:21″You worship what you do not know;(Samaratin woman) we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.… They did not know of your trinity and Jesus was not art of your false pagan trinity!
Your error is comical M.C.
just because you had that one occasion in scripture when it was asked “have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” does NOT mean that everybody doesn’t receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit when they believe. It varies from person to person. God indwells individuals by order of His infinite wisdom, on Gods time not our time. It varied in time frame with every scenario mentioned.
You are all over the place Burgos! You jump from one thing to the other.Yeah That One place In (Acts 19:2) means something and it has not changed into the false doctrine you teach because you misunderstand the scriptures..It tells us a lot and nothing has changed. Belief in scripture is a broad misunderstanding by you Reformed.. belief Means Acts 2:38 and does not mean what you have assigned it. Jesus proved it In Luke 24:47 and Paul confirmed In Acts 19:2 and 1stCor.6:11.. What did Jesus mean in Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Acts 8:14-20 proves that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Pentecostal experience.
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them THAT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; THEY HAD SIMPLY BEEN BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
Notice that the Samaritans had already believed and were baptized before they received “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Peter and John clearly prayed for them that “THEY MIGHT RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.”
Also notice that the Samaritans were baptized “in the Name of the Lord Jesus” and not in the titles of an alleged Trinity.
And notice that Simon desired to buy the power of God so that when he would lay his hands upon believers they would receive the Holy Spirit.
If the supernatural experience of speaking in other languages as the Spirit would give the utterance was not what Simon desired, then why would he offer money to be able lead people into a sinners prayer to receive the Holy Spirit? No one in the book of Acts repeated the words of a prayer to receive the Holy Spirit because the Spirit was always received just like the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore it is clear that most denominations have perverted the clear teachings of the word of God. Unfortunately, only us Oneness Pentecostals have it right on water and Spirit Baptism. Would to God that the masses would return to the true way of salvation that the first century apostles proclaimed in the book of Acts!
I would like to say That I knew nothing of Brother Ritchie’s debate with Burgos and I came here because something was posted about it on carm but in my mind I thought it was a written debate…I have had a lot dealings with Mr. Burgos and i have refuted an argument he thought was fool proof in his book on my blog as soon as it came out… I have to say I just listened to the debate and thought brother Ritchie did an excellent Job Defending the truth of God’s word! I will be posting it up on my blog soon, within the next couple of days….Great Job!
Oneness + Heresy = CULT
Just as I suspected based on the language, understanding, and strange interpretations I’ve read in this post, and heard in the debate between Mr Ritchie & Mr Burgos I’ve researched this group and found that they are indeed a cult.
3 persons = 3 gods like the hindu 3 persons equal 3 gods.
You have researched nothing Michael! You are bias toward your group of Reformed cultist. Michael will not engage anyone in a discussion he will simply employ hit and run tactics and leave.They have nothing.I have researched your group also so let’s compare but you will only run away. Micahel actually believes the gift of faith in 1st. Cor.12:9 is talking about saving faith instead of a gift of faith over and above saving faith. That is the silly doctrine the reformed actually teach.
Oneness seems to be a CULT along the same lines as JEHOVAHS WITNESS, UPCI, and CHURCH of CHRIST.
They were formed during a movement around 1914.
They are classic cultist in that they claim to be right and everybody else is wrong.
Unless you are firmly rooted, grounded and mature in the word of God, and yield to the Holy Spirit you are in danger of their DECEPTION.
Paul asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? (Acts 19:2) Letting us know, that no, you do not automatically receive the Spirit when you believe. Paul did not simply ask: have you believed? Which is the what the reformed and other will tell you. Do not take half truths but all of the truth! Reformed doctrine is cultic.
M.C. Fanatic. You must be looking in the mirror when you called me bias, and claimed that I employed tactics. Lol.., 🙂
In the small bit of research I’ve done I’ve found it to be the case that Oneness Pentecostalism is Cult.
With a big C..,
Yes in the small minded research you have done. You better hope you are right when you meet God. Anyone reading this will notice Michael will not engage me in any doctrine that his cult teaches. He simply say my research says they are a cult will I say put your research to the test and see who has the biblical witness. They cannot do it with any of their doctrines. they will lose handily.
I’ve addressed what you’ve gleaned from Acts 19. Nothing more to be said.
You guys have a strange interpretation of scripture. Suited & gift wrapped for those who rely on their own carnal perception of God.
You may enjoy lengthy round & round unedifying futile debate, but I don’t.
Stop fooling yourself. You haven’t refuted anybody !
Think about it Einstein.
Just as you’ve ignored & dismissed any claims from the opposing view. They have done the same as you.
They stopped the dialog because they figured it out before you that’s all.
You like the dog returns to his vomit.
And of course in this circle of nothingness you will say the same thing about us!
Waste of time to dialog with a Heretics like Oneness, Jehovahs Witness, Church of Christ, Mormons, Catholics, unless the love of God prevails.
In the flesh debate is listed among sinfulness.
When you or I stop the name calling, the pride or the condemnation, we may be able to yield to the spirit and edify one another!
I saw the gigantic red flag in your doctrine almost immediately. So I witnessed it first hand.
Then if trusted sources have affirmed what I have perceived, I’m inclined to agree that you guys are heretic, and another of many cults spawned around 1914.
Michael ignorantly writes:”In the flesh, debate is listed among sinfulness. ” Really? ROTFL! Yes it does! But that sin is not what we are engaging in….So you are telling me you love to wallow in the sin of debate? You have been doing it a lot of years on carm have you not? And God contradicted himself when through the writers of scripture he told us to do debate our cause with our neighbor?(Proverbs 25:9)
Note the following passages:
2nd Corinthians 12:20 and Romans 1:29 . Thayer’s defines the Greek wordfor debate as “contention, strife, wrangling.” for meaningless arguments sake. what we are engaging in has meaning and purpose. purpose as in the following
Like Paul I am set for the defense of the gospel Philippians 1:17
he disputed in the school of one Tyranus for the space of 2 years..(Acts 19:8-10) Well, you do not know these simple truths I do not know how to help you.
Like you saw debate that God told us to do was sin? Folks these are the men you want helping you to see things they themselves do not understand? Michael contradicted himself with the simple word debate how can anyone trust anything he says?
Michael wrote:”I’ve addressed what you’ve gleaned from Acts 19. Nothing more to be said.”
Yeah Michael, you wish nothing more to be said!
You addressed nothing in Acts 19:2! You made a passing unproven comment hoping nobody would notice.
Michael wrote:
“just because you had that one occasion in scripture when it was asked “have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” does NOT mean that everybody doesn’t receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit when they believe. It varies from person to person.”
Michael, Why would Paul ask that question? Michael would quick grab on to any passage that seemingly says you believe and receive the spirit, but rejects one(Acts 19:2) that blatantly contradicts his doctrine. why can we not do that to you? Can you imagine a debate where both sides simply ignores the other because it contradicts their doctrine? Typical! In effect he is ignoring it, hoping it goes away.
Here is another one John 20:23 Jesus said whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. Normally I get a knee jerk reaction and they say that is catholic! No! That is Jesus in the scriptures saying something you do not believe nor do you know how to deal with it!
First of all M.C. you are misinterpreting what I was saying, as you do the scriptures.
I don’t have problem with debate when it’s done in love, in the Holy Spirit. Again go back and carefully read my Position.
2 Cor 12:20 list debates with envying, wraths, strifes, backbitings, etc.
When the debate drops to those levels we are in the flesh we are committing sin.
See Romans 1:29 the list gets bigger, even including murder, & decit.
I am totally fine with debate as long as it is done in the love of God.
Stop reading so fast, an missing my point.
Again I addressed Acts 19 enough. Why did Paul ask that question?
Because he knew they had not rec’d the Holy Ghost baptism, not because he was establishing that there is a particular pattern.
That is what Oneness doctrine wants people to believe.
That is error!
So Michael is telling us he(Paul in Acts 19:2) asked them have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Now get this?” Because he knew they did not receive it?” Now in what world or interpretation of scripture does that make a lick of sense? He (Paul) asked the question because he did not know who these folks were and what they believed. The Reformed actually believe the Apostles knew everything or were omniscient. No he asked because he did not know and he wanted to know so that he could help them receive the Holy Ghost. The NT pattern for salvation has not changed from The Acts 2:38 pattern! When Paul understood by them telling him he then gave them enough understanding for them to be baptized in Jesus name and he laid his hands on them and they received the holy ghost speaking in other tongues.
The debate we do is because of love! Not for false doctrine! That is why we do not love your false doctrine. You are all over the place and continually contradict yourself.
Please spare me with your error D.C.
Don’t you Oneness folk believe in that “Initial evidence” lie? Yep! So if they had rec’d the indwelling you think MAYBE somebody would be speaking in tongues randomly as ya’ll do today? Lol..,
Paul knew they believed. Obviously that question was already asked. Read Paul’s question again!
I lean to the strong probability that Paul knew they didn’t, and asked because there was another level in the process, and he was going to lead them there if necessary!
For the baptism of the spirit is of divine decision, not limited by the steps, or in the order or “pattern” Oneness doctrine teaches.
I do not care what you lean to! I want bible and as yet you have given zero! What in the world are you talking about?It is clear from the garbled mess you just gave me you have no idea what you are talking about! Speaking in tongues Randomly? Shaking of head! The information is all right there in the scriptures but you do not believe it because it does not fit your false doctrine Just Like John 20:23 does not! The question was not asked we can put all kinds of your false doctrines in there maybe we could put the pope also nice argument you got there for the Catholics. Michael you need to get someone help you as you are embarrassing yourself. I hope someone Reformed uses that on me in debate so I can laugh them out of the place.
The disciples on the day of pentecost had rec’d water baptism before that day also. Yet they and the others with them rec’d the Holy Ghost.
There are other examples. in the NT that didn’t follow your pattern.
Proving that its at Gods discretion. Not Oneness pattern theology.
Divine decision? God gave us Romans 10:13-17 faith come by hearing hearing by the word of God. Oh yeah disregard that because it comes by divine decision. God puts hooks in your jaws and ignores his immutable word bypassing the faith that comes by hearing his word and makes you a believer instead. again instead reconciling God’s word Calvinism contradicts God’s word. God makes you a believer because He has furnished everything but requires our faith. just like he did all the great heroes of faith in the book of Hebrews.
Please spare me the remarks to discredit me. As this discussion is all over the place. I only go where it takes me.
Your tactics are comical.
Maichael writes:”The disciples on the day of pentecost had rec’d water baptism before that day also. Yet they and the others with them rec’d the Holy Ghost.There are other examples.”
So? And this effects me how in the way of any meaningful answer?
If I had your doctrine, i would run from Acts 19:2 also! Paul did not ask have you believed on the Lord Jesus Christ? He asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Rebuking your false teaching of automatic reception of the spirit. Peter said on the Pentecost after they received for this promise is unto you and your children even as many as the lord our God shall call (Acts 2:39) Nothing has changed!
Michael Burgos pretty much told us in his debate with Steve Ritchie that there is the Father of God because God is love.Can you imagine?
There are a lot of insults being made here. Would Christ want this type of discussion?
Also, I noticed mike using the word cult to describe UPCI and other organizations without explanation. If we use this type of attack towards each other, how much more do we enable those of a non-Christian or atheist persuasion to use the same? You could indirectly help those who think we (Christians) are the problem in society to use our own attacks against us.
This debate was on primarily the Godhead, so why are there attacks in other areas of belief. Just because one is wrong in one area of theology doesn’t make them wrong of all. We both believe Christ is Deity and that God is one, even though our understanding is very different. Neither of us can say we understand God fully, so we shouldn’t say we do. Debates like this are meant to further our understanding, yet it appears only to create a greater divide.
Personal attacks will not save anyone. God is Love. If we are to claim to be godly we must do all in word and deed in love. Love is kind and I see a lot of hurtful words. We are all passionate of our beliefs, but that doesn’t give us the right to attack groups and people with hurtful and unkind comments.
I love the conversations, and I wish we could be more open to discussion and to deeper understanding. I am oneness Pentecostal, but I am open to anyone who can show bible to prove there point. There is a lot of ambiguous text in the bible written in wording and phrases better understood 2,000 years ago. There will be differences in beliefs!
God bless!
All I know is that I follow hard after my God and the truth of His word, “believing all things written in the law, the prophets,” and the apostles. Call us heretics if you like but it does not change the fact that the apostles and prophets preached One God as One Individual, not as three Individual Persons. The NT apostles also preached WATER and SPIRIT BAPTISM in order to be “BORN OF THE WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT (John 3:5)” just as our Lord Jesus commanded.
Anyone who searches the scriptures with an honest and noble heart will find that the apostles always baptized all new believers in the Name of Jesus the Christ for the remission of sins immediately after faith and repentance and they also prayed for them to receive “the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” which was clearly evidenced by speaking in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance.
Acts 8:14-17 proves that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not automatically bestowed upon faith, repentance, and Christian baptism.
“14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them THAT THEY MIGHT RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; THEY HAD SIMPLY BEEN BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.”
Notice that the Samaritans already believed and were baptized yet they did not yet receive “THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.”
If the majority of professing Christians will to be ignorant, let them be ignorant. They are not the plantings of the Father. For many are called but few are chosen. Yet God’s true elect will come out of the errors of the masses to believe in only ONE GOD, ONE NAME, and one Christian baptism for the remission of sins.
Hebrews 6:1-2 proves that “the doctrine of baptisms” includes “water” and “Spirit” baptism.” Therefore we must be born of the WATER and of the SPIRIT just like our Savior commanded.
Not a single new convert in the book of Acts ever received the gift of the Holy Spirit upon initial faith or upon an initial prayer of repentance!
Jesus himself told us to “Search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.”
Duhhhh.., earlier on this same point I said it’s God decision whom & when He will baptize with the Holy Spirit. When I said Divine decision it was my words again to THAT point.
You are so reaching bruh. Stop playing games!
Do I have to repeat my points & position to you in full every time I post? ..,
If it’s not God’s decision just say it’s true or false.
Automatic Reception?
I have never heard that before!
Stop saying you don’t understand me. And then respond directly to the point.
Hmmmm.., sounding like a liar.
You don’t care what I lean too?
Lol.., 🙂
Youre saying a whole lot of words yourself .
I have chosen to speak to you more thsn dropping scripture.
Now why would i do that?
Because your interpretation is soooooo warped, I took a different approach.
You don’t have ears to hear anything I say or scripture I share because you are bent.
Sometimes you can’t give that which is Holy to dogs.
This is where you want this discussion to go.
Your sinful tactics are soooooooooooo obvious.
Keep reaching kid, cause that’s really all you got.
Mike, you have to make a point before one can be addressed. Yes you believe one receives the spirit silently when you believe. True or false? Yes it is God’s decision but he does not go against his immutable word. His word says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. God honors his word. You say he chooses willy nilly and refuses willy nilly.
Mr Ritchie, your boy Manuel Culwell wanted this, he was being very condescending, and disrespectful.
I admitted my part in the stooping to his level and tried to change the tone.
But you didn’t mention his name in your admonishment.
Unfortunately i returned his folly and I assure you I didn’t want to, I wanted a godly discussion, but I slipped when Manuel made
his disparaging remarks toward me!
For that i apologize
Manuel I never said He does it Willy Nilly.
Of course God does everything according to His word.
I never said He didnt, you just understood my statement that way!
I made nothing but points you just chose to discredit them & me. So I returned your folly. And I was wrong for that. But not wrong in doctrine.
Was your “slipping” when you said:” Oneness + Heresy= cult on November 27 at 3:41 unprovoked by anyone?”
When someone is baptized of water, it is evident by how wet they are. Jesus did command us more than once to be baptized, and even himself was baptized. He said in John 3:5 to be born of water and of Spirit. If it is evident when someone is baptized of water, it likewise would be evident when someone is baptized with the Spirit, if not more evident. It is described to be like wind in verse 8. We can feel and hear wind as it blows, but we cannot see it.
If we are wrong, we have done more than enough to be saved. I don’t think God is going to look down on someone going above and beyond His will. If so, we’re in deep trouble, all of us. We just want to be saved, and others saved with us. I would rather be safe than sorry. We believe that this is just the start of the believers walk with God, not the full experience.
Without tongues, how does one know if they’ve been filled? The only way we know the Spirit has been poured out is by the new tongues on the day of Pentecost. It is for our benefit to speak with tongues, even if it were not essential.
Yep I was slipping,
So while your checking please note that someone did the same before me!
I did not start that. At first I was doing it in jest in response to the same!
Bob James started it Nov 24th
when he finished his post with “Oneness Truth, Trinitarian Heresy.”
I responded in jest to play on his statement.
In hindsight i shouldn’t have done that.
I am not Bob James!
You certainly picked up where we left off.. MC.
You start calling the truth a cult and you better believe i am going to pick up and make no apologies about it. Buy the truth sell it not!
Oneness doctrine is your truth. It’s not Truth.
It’s obvious your not spiritual enough to apologize. Your post reflect what God hates. Pride!
ROTFL! Your something else are you not. YOU ARE NOT SPIRITUAL ENOUGH. Thanks for telling me that god.I think you might better repent again.
I LOVE TRINITARIANS as I was once one of them. I was a Baptist before being baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit with tongues. I can honestly state that when I received the Holy Spirit in a Oneness Pentecostal Church I knew that I had received the Spirit of God. It feels like a spiritual fire burning and tingling both inside of my spirit and throughout my body. When I was a southern Baptist I kept asking if I had the Holy Spirit and had to be encouraged to believe that I had it when I did not. When I met a Oneness believer who was filled with the Holy Spirit I was immediately drawn to him because I could easily discern that he had the supernatural power of the Spirit of God that I was looking for. He was very kind and compassionate with me whenever I resisted the truth at first so I encourage all to walk in love for our Master even commanded us to love our enemies.
1 John 4:13 “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.”
No one can convince me that I am in a cultic movement because the Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of the King. Yet I have a great deal of compassion and mercy for those who are blinded to the fullness of truth. Brother Miculwell is zealously proclaiming the truth in a strong way but I truly believe that he also loves Trinitarians just as John the Baptist still loved his audience even though he was sometimes harsh with them.
Michael and others can call me a cultic heretic all they want but I will still keep loving them through the power of the Spirit of Christ who lives in me. I count it a great privilege to be ridiculed and to suffer shame for His glorious Name. For a servant is not greater than his Master. If they said that our Savior was of the Devil, how much more they of His own household, Christ’s true Church?
I will keep praying like brother Stephen, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge! God’s true elect will receive the whole gospel message even if they are as stubborn as Saul of Tarsus.
I have noooooooooooooo problem repenting, unlike you MC, humility is not a problem here!
Well said Mr Ritchie, and it is obvious that Manuel Culwell has issues which will require much prayer. He absolutely has a zeal of God but not according to knowledge.
Completely Lacks humility which is not christian sad fellow full of pride. Which is surprising since you guys are works oriented.
I too can make the claim of suffering for Christ. But I count it all joy.
I have been researching Oneness teaching since I listened to your debate.
Literally everything I have found corroborate my experience after hearing your language, and doctrine for the first time.
Of course it was strange to me.
But having a dialog with a prideful zealot like Manuel (who can dish out but can’t take it)
is not productive.
It’s funny how i mentioned to Manuel that Paul probably knew those he asked if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed, that they had not. Manuel claimed that I believed in some “Automatic Reception”?
I bet he would claim something different to give you a pass on your testimony above about when you met that Oneness believer.
He will probably ignore that or target the fact that I didn’t dot an i cause he’s an expert at tactics.
Won’t you Manny!
You have not repented one little bit, the proof is you are looking for every opportunity to criticize me and do in every post. even after you said you repented.. I knew you were going to keep harping, I had been on carm along time and I know how you work. You keep on and on :”Manuel did this, he has no humility”, then you say “I am this and I am humble.” Please???? Get over yourself. Do you have an argument or not? Do not bother me any longer if you are going to keep this nonsense up. I will go somewhere else.
Yes Automatic (silent) reception when you accept Jesus or believe (mental assent)
Is your identity all4him? what Michael are you on carm?
Brother Ritchie is correct in both cases I proclaim the truth in strong manner and I love trinitarains. I been to their houses and have prayed with them. I do not tell myself “bless God you are trinitarain so you are condemned.” No! If you put yourself in the position where you are going to rebuke truth as a lie then you are going to get a rebuke from me in a strong manner in which you dish it out.. I rebuke leadership that does this, not your rank and file trinitarain folks. Michael has put himself in that position. Anyone who gets on the internet to rebuke us with the bad apologetics they have been taught, has put themselves in that position. Are you all4him on Carm or not? I see you put up a post about speaking tongues, so it is stuck in your craw.
First of you are wrong again
as usual MC
I am NOT this “all4him” guy nor am I on carm. and never have I been.
Also, you must be looking in the with mirror your accusations and criticism.
it’s amazing how a hypocrite like you do things.
You don’t need to discuss scripture with anybody, especially me cause I’m gonna give right back what you give.
And like the false witness you are you hide behind your criticism & justify why you have zero humility or remorse for your actions.
I saw it almost immediately, and anybody with a kindergarten education, can see your pride.
That’s you, not the Holy Spirit. Keep fooling yourself, as pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before the fall.
I asked you if you were all4him and asked you if you were any of the Michael’s on carm? I asked you like Paul asked:” have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed”? Because you act Just like him.. I did not ask because I knew, but because I did not know. That is for sure pride goes before a fall.
A hard lesson learned in refuting your point.That is the difference in what you say and what I say.It makes no sesne.
I don’t know if you know this but terms in our doctrines are defined differently!
Therein is the reason many things we say to each other makes no sense to the other.
That’s a challenge all by itself.
I know what you teach concerning you trinity and salvation and reject it as un-scriptural. Either we stop the foolish banter and compare notes or I can just go away from here.
There’s nothing to discuss between you me. The sky is blue to me, it’s light blue to you.
I have learned about your denomination and found it to be a cult.
I will warn others to avoid at all cost.
No you have not! I am not UPC! So you know nothing about me.
Splinter group from UPC?
No!
The UPC is just a small segment of Oneness believers world wide. Most of the brethren I fellowship with outside of the UPC prefer to call themselves Apostolic Faith Christians. Recent research proves that there are somewhere between 25 to 30 million Oneness believers world wide so the UPC is just a small fraction of the body of Christ. The Apostolic World Christian Fellowship has a constituency of well over 5 million Apostolic faith believers world wide. I am affiliated with the AWCF because I fellowship with the whole body of Christ rather then not just a segment of the body. For by One Spirit are we all baptized into ONE BODY.
Does AWCF teach that you MUST be baptized in Jesus name for salvation?
And that being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost necessitates re-baptism in Jesus name to be saved?
Imagine being called a cult becasue we baptize in the saving name of Jesus. Acts 4:12. Luke 24:47/Acts 2:38 ,Acts 8:16, Acts 10:43.48,Acts 19:5
Imagine being called a cult becasue we believe JESUS is our Great God and Saviour who gave Himself for us. Titus 2:13-14
Imagine being called a cult because we believe by One Spirit are WE ALL BAPTIZED into one body. 1 Cor 12:13.
Imagine being called a cult because we believe what Jesus said in Mark 16:17 these signs shall follow “them that believe” they shall speak with new tongues.
I do not have time to mess with you much today; but I know you are trying to draw us into a discussion and I welcome discussion on this issue. The first issue i want to take out of your hands is “baptismal regeneration” because I think you are taught that is what we believe and it is not. In other words it is what you believe about us and it is not! The second issue is baptism in the titles and i will allow you to hang yourself with that. The titles: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, refer to Jesus name which has all authority literally in that spoken name for his bride and not anyone else.My name is not father son and husband. They are relationship titles. We the bride only has one Husband ie.Jesus and the husband of the bride has only one name.
http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/search/label/Baptismal%20Regeneration
It takes a birth of water and Spirit. John 3:5
Not water only, and not Spirit only, Both.
Paul said “He saved us” by the “washing of regenerstion” AND “renewing of the Holy Ghost” which He “SHED ON US ABUNDANTLY” Titus 3:5-6
If you are only born of Water the Samaritians would have been ok.( Acts 8:14-17) but we know that the had not received the Spirit yet.
If you are only born of Spirit like the Gentiles you would be commanded to be baptized in Jesus name. Acts 10:44-48
side note : it is through His name we receive remission. Acts 10:43.. 5 verses later they are commanded to be baptized in the name that brings remission. The person baptizing calls on that name John 20:23-Lu
continued.. John 20:23 – Luke 24:47 – Acts 22:16.
Nowhere did the Apostles recite Matt 28:19. It is the name of JESUS used in water Baptism and healings, and in castng out devils. Acts 2:38- Acts 8:16-Acts 10:48-Acts19:5. Acts 3:6, Acts 16:18
If JESUS is the name of our great God and Saviour (Titus 2:13-14) it makes sense to baptize only in His name. He died for us..shed His blood for us..was buried and rose again for us. “We are buried with Him” in Baptism. Romans 6:4
Excellent Mecaliman!
Image a person being blindfolded. He is sitting in a room and a person enters that room. This person allows the blindfolded man to feel him. He leaves the room. A few minutes later a man enters the room, and speaks to the man blindfolded. He leaves the room. A few minutes later a man enters the room and allows the man blindfolded to remove his blinds and see him, and then leaves the room.
The man blindfolded could say that he experienced three distinct people or persons, or he could say that he experienced three distinct traits of the same person. God can reveal Himself in different ways.
Another error I see going on is that of the Father being in Christ. We don’t believe that the Father is a person in the Godhead (God is the “Father” [title]), so the person was not in Christ. God was manifest in the flesh, hence God was in Christ. Remember that God is everywhere, not limited to time and space. Jesus could say my Father because he was a product of Him, the flesh I mean. I also have a serious problem calling God a person, or persons; we should not place God on the same level as man. Satan is called the “father” of lies. (John 8:44) Same Greek word for God the “Father” in Matthew 6:9.
God is holy. (Leviticus 20:26) God is Spirit. (John 4:24) Hence God is Holy Spirit! Jesus said I come in my Father’s name. (John 5:43) Jesus said that the Father would send the Holy Spirit or Comforter in his (Jesus) name. By the way, Jesus said he was the Comforter in John 14:18. So you see, the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Jesus. There is no other name. (Acts 4:12) Those closest to him would have realized this, which is why they all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
God bless!
I see that God is raising up a mighty army of many Oneness apologists against the false Trinitarian dogma. The prior postings from different Oneness brethren prove that the Trinitarian dogma could not be correct and that Oneness Pentecostals are holding onto the Apostolic Faith of the first century apostles.
Here is the answer to Mike’s question, “Does AWCF teach that you MUST be baptized in Jesus name for salvation? And that being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost necessitates re-baptism in Jesus name to be saved?”
THE ANSWER IS AN EMPHATIC YES! I fellowship with AWCF Ministers throughout the U.S. and the world and all I have come in contact with believe that water baptism in the Name of Jesus is necessary for salvation and that all who have been baptized into the titles of the Trinitarian formula (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) must be re-baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. All ministers who affiliate with the AWCF have to believe in Oneness theology, baptism in Jesus Name, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit with tongues. I know of some UPC, PAW, Bible Way, and Church of our Lord Jesus Christ who are affiliated with us and with main line Oneness Organizations. At the AWCF Washington D.C. Conference in 2014 we had preachers from UPC, PAW, BIBLE WAY, AND COOLJC Minister. All preached with a powerful anointing and we were all refreshed. Ron Libby from the UPC preached an excellent message on taking up our crosses and disowning ourselves to follow Jesus. The true bride of Christ is making herself ready before the coming of the Lord!
The primary reason the Oneness Pentecostal movement (which sprung up around 1914) is considered a CULT is their perversion of the Bible’s message of salvation.
In addition, their distorted view of the Godhead, legalism, spiritual elitism, are all said to be out of the pale of orthodoxy within fundamental historic Christianity.
The ones who really twist the salvation message call the ones with the real salvation message a cult. Imagine that?
Apostolic World Christian Fellowship (AWCF) is an ALLIANCE of Oneness Pentecostal organizations
that include 181 organizations, 20,200 ministers, and 5.2 million members worldwide.
It was founded in 1971
by Worthy G. Rowe, a pastor in South Bend, IN, out of a desire for unity among the smaller Oneness Pentecostal organizations.
Oneness Pentecostalism (like the Church of Christ) believe that water baptism is an ESSENTIAL part of spiritual rebirth.
And many Oneness ( like the JEHOVAHS WITNESSES), believe the Son & Holy Spirit were created.
Do you have a point? No you are just spitting out meaningless trivia that has nothing to do with anything.
No mike, we believe the name Jesus called over you in water baptism is essential to salvation because the bride wears the name of her husband. Since you are not part of the bride you would not know that…You have proven your ignorance.Thanks for playing though!
FALSE DOCTRINE!!!!!
ROTFL! Nice argument Mike!
We do not believe your baptism does any more than the churches of Christ and is as valid as the JW’s which is zero for all of you who are in the same boat and sinking ship.
Dropping facts of the history and teaching of the Oneness movement.
There’s a lot more!
It is meaningless because you cannot defend your doctrine.
That’s what qualifies the Oneness movement a cult.
They believe they are the only ones who are truly born again.
You are funny! You believe the same thing! So by your own criteria you are a cult. You believe everyone who believes salvation like you are the only ones to the exclusion of anyone else. You have nothing but conjecture It is either you or us.You are not going to prove anything with the contradictory mess you just gave.
It’s very sad but fascinating the many sects, & splinter sects.
This post has lead me to some interesting facts about the Oneness Pentecostal movement.
Very cultic tactics, & teaching!
They meaningless.
No I believe in what the Holy Scriptures says about who is born again.
I pledge no allegiance with any group, organization, denomination, or specific theology.
The only banner I wave is the blood stained christian banner. No denomination.
You believe in the man centered man invented trinity denomination
Not true M.C.
I BELIEVE:
If anyone, who comes to God with the same saving faith as father Abraham whether they are Oneness Pentecostal, Baptist, methodist, or even the Church of Christ, that Jesus will save them right where they are.
Denominations can prevent God’s elect, they are just a temporary yoke upon them due to false teaching.
But because God is Faithful., the Holy Spirit will eventually lead them into all truth.
Those officially in the Body of Christ don’t dwell only between the walls of a Oneness Pentecostal church.
Yes saving faith! Faith comes by hearing the word of God! Jesus said In Luke 24:47 that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Do know that means? That means Jesus confirmed Acts 2:38 as the unchanging salvation message for all times and all peoples as Acts 2:38 was preached in Jerusalem the first time the Apostles ever preached in accordance with Jesus commands and it began at Jerusalem.
The bride wears the name of her husband and it is not Father son and Husband but Jesus the One husband of the one bride the church.
Just a little background on me.
I grew up a Jehovahs Witness, so I’m very familiar with cultic practices & methodology.
One of the things I discovered after my family was liberated was the JW’s true history. Which they kept from us. They conditioned us to believe the JW’s began on the Day of Pentecost. Lol..,
Discovering they were just a 20th Century new church on the block but claiming to be the True & Only church on the block was very liberating.
Oneness Pentecostal’s have that among other things in common with the JW’s, Church of Christ, 7th day Adventist, The Mormons and other denominations that sprung up in the late 19th Century, early 20th century.
They all claim to be the only true church, just like many Oneness sects.
See my point?
It explains the church pattern that Oneness Pentecostalism is REALLY following.
When you place your faith in man and not in Christ, that’s when you go by & promote your denomination more than Christ.
Cultic folk are bent on proving you’re right and everybody else is wrong.
Cultic folk ENJOY telling all others they’re lost.
Doesn’t that sound twisted and in opposition to Christian love?
That’s another cultic pattern?
Mike wrote, “Cultic folk are bent on proving you’re right and everybody else is wrong.” Is that not what you are doing by falsely accusing us and calling us cultic? Oneness theology did not begin in a 1913 camp meeting. Tertullian wrote against Praxeaus that “they that always make up the majority of believers reject the economy (the trinity).” Tertullian acknowledged that the majority of believers in the late second century and early third century were Modalistic Monarchians. The Monarchian Modalists taught the same Oneness theology that Oneness Pentecostals do today. The annals of church history also reveals that there were many Oneness believers throughout church history. And yes brother Miculwell is right in stating that the true bride of Christ knows who her husband really is and she receives her husband’s Name in baptism. For no one can enter the kingdom of God without receiving and bearing His holy name (John 3:5 / Luke 24:46-47 / Acts 2:38 / Acts 4:12 / Acts 10:47-48 / Colossians 3:17).
The apostles and evangelists of the NT Church ALWAYS baptized all new converts on the same day that believed and repented because they taught that water baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus was necessary for the remission or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38 / Acts 22:16). 1 Peter 3:20-21 (NASB) says that “… eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you … through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
God knows my heart that I always let the scriptures themselves judge the hearts of men so I never have to tell anyone that they are lost. The scriptures do that work because the word of God itself proves that men are not saved without obeying the faith that was once delivered to the saints. The command is to “repent and BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST (Acts 2:38). Acts 10:48 clearly commands everyone to BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.”
The Greek text in Acts 10:48 uses the Greek words “Iesous Krystos” which are accurately translated as “Jesus Christ.” Those who have not been baptized in the Name of the Messiah are disobedient to the word of God.
Not at all Mr Ricthie,
I’m still learning, i’m just calling it like i see it. I seen plenty red flags with your language and interpretation. and my research is confirming it.
My 11 years experience in the Jehovahs Witnesses, has given me additional discernment on cultic ways teaching & methodology. You guys are VERY similar.
Mr Ritchie, Ive been there and done that.
ALSO:
People need to see both sides of the coin with regards to a view of the Oneness Pentecostal movement.
If the JW’s (through fear tactics) didn’t forbid us to research other sources of their recorded history regarding the Watchtower society, my family could have left that cult allot sooner!
Also Mr Ritchie,
as i mentioned before, much like the Jehovahs Witnesses aligned themselves with the Apostles, history tells us the truth of their origin.
Tertullian’s acknowledgement of the Modalistic Monarchians and the Monarchian Modalists teaching (“what YOU say”) is the same Oneness theology, doesnt change your movements recorded beginnings in 1914.
Your alignment is deception just like the JW’s.
I’m sure the Monarchian Modalists didnt exercise the same cultic tactics as many Oneness sects do today?
My experience when folk have redefined terms, and interprets scripture differently that its VERY VERY difficult to accomplish agreement between the two.
Oneness interpretation is so driven by human logic it sounds close to demonic the more i hear it. Very vexing!
If one side is of a human perspective & the other spiritual you can’t find common ground. Its like when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus!
I choose to reveal your history, your methods, and tactics, because your interpretation is in error, and very flawed.
Quoting selective Jewish literature has to be met also with whether the writers referenced have themselves submitted to the deity of the Christ. If they were NOT messianic Jews of course many would be of a modalistic persuasion.
Quoting Jews who were BROKEN OFF of the olive branch because of unbelief, does NOT mean they were still correct in their understanding of the Godhead.
Michael with more unfounded conjecture states”I’m sure the Monarchian Modalists didnt exercise the same cultic tactics as many Oneness sects do today?”
They believe juts like we do. We are about restoring truth not finding some connecting lineage accept for Jesus and his word. That is the only thing that connects us to truth and being obedient to his word by faith. Not some succession through lineage somehow.
The point Bro.Ritchie was making was that Tertullian admitted they were in the Majority and Tertullian was not. Tertullian was an outside anomaly.
No Michael you are not sure! You are here to poison the well and that is it. Your JW tactics are coming out trying to not allow anyone to listen to our side of the issue. we do not do that we want people to hear both sides.
Your origin is no better than the JW’s you come from Murderer named John Calvin who killed the Oneness preacher Michael Servetus. I do not want to hear about some law that made it ok. That is evil! You show know them by their fruits. You cannot give some excuse.
I denounce Calvinism and Arminianism, as I denounce Oneness Pentecostalism, and their partners in crime the Jehovahs Witnesses. I’m not of Paul or Apollos or any man made denomination. I’m with Christ Jesus my savior and Lord. and HIS WORD not yours or any mans.
Let every man be a lie and God be truth! That includes me & you!
The Oneness doctrine is legalistic to the core, beginning with a works-based teaching of salvation.
Your STANDARD of HOLINESS doctrine is authoritarianism at its best, and similar to the CATHOLIC view.
That is, if the Bible isn’t clear, you should just do what the spiritual authority says.
Hmmmm I wonder who is designated as your spiritual authorities?
Are they your leadership like the JW’s ELDERS who are taught & teach legalistic error?
I’ve heard for many years that Oneness doctrine was error laden.
and since I heard this debate, been researching Oneness Pentecostalism and dealt with you guys on this platform I see it for myself.
Amazing how accurate your ex-members critique and warnings are!
On Point.., 🙂 smh…
So obeying Gods word is Legalism and your excuse to ignore God? God to Abraham: get you out of your country to a land I will show you! Oh no thanks God that is legalism? That is you and your coput cry of legalism.
You heard this and that but you are not willing to debate any of it. Anyone can talk unfounded smack like you are doing.
On point for what? Your man-made, man centered trinity doctrine of excuses?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Here is a whole chapter on works, unless of course James is wrong.
I am UPC, and I’m not sure why some compare us to JW or any other religion without proof of their accusations.
Standards don’t save and we don’t teach that. Modesty however does. It is taught in the bible. (I Timothy 2:9) If we were accused of going above and beyond, I could understand your accusations.
Jesus himself said that “Ye shall know them by their fruits…” (Matt 7:16) How can one be a Christain (or Christ like) without following the example of our Lord and Savior? We repent because he told us to. (Matt 4:17) We are baptized because he told us to. (Matt 28:19; John 3:5) We receive the Holy Spirit because he promised us he would not leave us comfortless, that he would come to us. (John 14:18, 26) And the only time I can recall seeing a direct question being ask “what must we do?” (Acts 2:37) Peter replies repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit! (Acts 2:38)
We believe what Jesus and his disciples taught. Our beliefs were not of some devine revelation, but of a sincere study of what the bible truly says.
God bless!
What do you wanna debate MC? Are you so new to this that you think we can accomplish something?
You legalistic folk have no clue about works. That’s why you boast about doing Oneness works. Sorry but they are not the works of God.
ROTFL! Yeah I am new to this… So why don’t you teach me something?
Alright we will leave you to your ignorance.
You Are Too Indoctrinated Too Learn ANYTHING From A Source Outside Of Your Denomination?
As soon as it speaks to the contrary you reject it. And worst than that you will ignore anything the opposite view puts on the table.
You should know that mr experienced debater. Lol…, 🙂
Or did I just teach you somrthing? Lol..
Ignorance of oneness heretical doctrine is avoiding the blind leaders ditch. Lol…,
I’m getting tired of reading Michael’s angry and immature words. Can we return to a scriptural and honorable discussion? For we are commanded to “SPEAK THE TRUTH IN LOVE” and to “HONOR ALL MEN, FEAR GOD, HONOR THE KING.”
JW’s cannot be compared to Oneness Pentecostals because we do encourage people to do their own self study and to allow the Spirit of God to reveal things to them. Unlike the JW Organization which commands all Kingdom Hall’s to teach out of a prewritten text drawn up by headquarters, Oneness Pastors, Elders, and Teachers depend upon the Holy Spirit to lead them to teach and preach under divine inspiration. We are more like other Pentecostal groups such as the Assemblies of God and the Church of God as we rely upon the Holy Spirit to lead each individual Christian and each local Church as a local expression of the body of Christ. And we do not believe that Jesus is Michael the arch angel because he is “Immanuel, God with us” as a man. Therefore there is no comparison between JW’s and Oneness believers.
I’m not angry at all. Really. Im not trying to be mean, im trying to do this in a fun spirit. Actually I’m smiling, and getting a lot of laughs at the responses. Seriously.
This is a serious thing but you know it is difficult to convey actual emotions.
I’m a very friendly and fun loving guy.
But you know I’m not alone in this Mr Ritchie. ! I prefer it to be civil but I’m human. And I have been attacked here too.
But I’m okay, it’s really more comical to me!
I will try harder to reframe.
Mr Ritchie, I’m all for a mature dialog, but I’m not alone in how this discussion has taken so many turns for the worse.
My belief system was compared to Hinduism, I was called a Calvinist among other things!
What you said about the JW’s is true. But these comparisons are not based on those practices but others.
Enough that I as a former JW see many similarities.
And from my Oneness research, not all Oneness sects are as guilty as others.
And the Jehovahs Witnesses are arguably the best at what a large organized cult has to offer.
What are doing on a Calvinist site? That is what Theoplogetics is.
Thomas a Hebrew who believed in One God (Deut 6:4 – Mal 2:10) after doubting proclaims in John 20:28 “The Lord of me and the God of me”
Which God do you think Thomas a God fearing Jew was thinking of?
Did Thomas have persons of god in mind?
Did Thomas have the Trinity in mind?
M.C…, I found this site when I was researching a author regarding evangelical feminism. Theopologetics set staged a awesome debate with the author. I liked how they brought two opposing views together for civil peaceful debate.
I learned allot.
🙂
I am not interested! I am not interested in evangelical feminism. Go peddle your wares somewhere else.
Mecaliman.., Thomas had this in mind that was that all doubt was gone, and he was fully persuaded that Jesus was Lord, and God.
His understanding, possible curiosity, or questions concerning the Father & the Holy Spirit. (Whom I’m sure Thomas heard Jesus refer to over the course of his discipleship) was most likely dealt with and understood at a later date.
M.C. I was interested, as I was in a conversation with feminist who believe that women are called to head ship in the church.
I was recommended a book that they felt would prove their equality in the pastorate, so I checked out the book, the author and their case.
Just like I did your Oneness cult.
I found that just like they are full of it, you guys are too!
Lol.., 🙂 you are a hilarious piece of work M.C. Lol…
According to your fallacy though, would not Thomas in Calling the one persons of Jesus God. Why was he not calling Jesus his Lord and his trinity? I thought to you trinitarians God means trinity. No of course not only when it suits you.
3 persons of the trinity are 3 gods like the hindu 3 persons are 3 gods. There is no way around it. You talk about a cult? Mike is knee deep in 3 gods with his trinity.
Yep M.C. I do believe in the Godhead.
But what I glean from what Thomas said is no more a fallacy than your interpretation.
And please get your Hindu info correct along with your theology. They have many more than 3 gods.
Lol.., 🙂
2 more than 1 is just like your trinity. It is the same sin.
My hindu information is correct it is the same sin you are involved in.
Even some of the founding fathers of the Trinity believed that the only true God (the Father) pre-created all things through His own Word, Reason, and Intelligence which later became the Son.
Tertullian wrote in AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 6
“Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom’s Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and ALREADY MADE, so far forth as (they were) IN THE MIND AND INTELLIGENCE OF GOD.”
Tertullian himself admits that the Word (logos) was the Father’s own Reason, Word, Mind, and Intelligence in which God the Father “ALREADY MADE” all things “THROUGH WHOM THEY HAD BEEN PLANNED.” However, Tertullian wrote that the Son was formed as a pre-incarnate Son (Arianism) when God said, “Let there be light.”
AGAINST PRAXEUS CHAPTER 7
Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, Let there be light. Genesis 1:3 This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God— formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom … or by proceeding from Himself HE BECAME HIS FIRST BEGOTTEN SON, because begotten before all things; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART [THE FATHER’S].”
Tertullian clearly stated that the Son was BEGOTTEN “from the womb of the Father’s heart” when God said, “Let there be light in” in Genesis 1:3. Hence, Tertullian taught a pre-incarnate created Son prior to the incarnation. Therefore the chief founding father of Trinitarian theology was really an Arian who wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3.
“God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. FOR HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as HE BECAME THE FATHER BY THE SON, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.”
Tertullian clearly taught that God was not always a Father to the Son but became a Father when the Son was begotten.
The historical evidence proves that the majority of Christians of the first few centuries were the Monarchians (Oneness Christians) and that the Trinitarian dogma gradually developed into 3 coequal and coeternal persons.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEUS (written somewhere between 207-225)
Chapter 3 “The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) WHO ALWAYS CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; … The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity … They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; … We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God).” Much more info at apostolicchristianfaith.com
Tertullian used the analogy of a man’s own word being the same thing as the Word which was with God from the beginning.
Against Praxeus Chapter 5
“The Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason … For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as HE SILENTLY PLANNED AND ARRANGED WITHIN HIMSELF EVERYTHING WHICH HE WAS AFTERWARDS ABOUT TO UTTER THROUGH HIS WORD. Now, while HE WAS THUS PLANNING AND ARRANGING WITH HIS OWN REASON … And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made in the image and likeness of God, Genesis 1:26 for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE WORD IS A SECOND PERSON WITH YOU, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought.”
Since no sane individual can say that a second person exists within them, Tertullian’s human analogy proves that the Word (logos = Reason, Mind, Thought, Speech) of God belongs to Himself just like the word of a man belongs to himself. Therefore Tertullian himself stated that God pre-created all things through His own Mind and Plan which later became the Son. This is exactly what I was saying in my debate with Mr. Burgos that God created all things through Christ in His LOGOS and THROUGH HIS LOGOS/WORD!
Ephesians 4:3 “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
If the Apostle Paul believed in trinity, why didn’t he say (keep the trinity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”? I know mike that you believe in the trinity, but I have yet to see you prove it in the bible. “Trinity” is not in the bible. “Three persons” is not in the bible. I’ve seen scripture after scripture from the oneness purspective, but I want to see the scripture that proves God has revealed HIMSELF in three distinct persons.
Excellent debate brother Cullwell!
How can i listen to Bro Ritchie debate?
John 17:5
Jesus did not pre-exist as a flesh and blood man in eternity past. If taken literally Jesus praying says “”glorify thou me with thine own self with the the glory which I had with thee before the world was”
This places Jesus as a flesh and blood man before the world was.
Also, Isa 53 speaking of the future messiah uses language that presents the cross as already happening.
……….
Thank you Brother! here is Bro. Ritchie’s debate with Michael Burgos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VJCb5lV5Fc
Mr Ritchie,
Your little online MINIONS in this post (M.C. and Mecaliman) are hilarious!
Patting each other on the back like my Muslim co-workers do when they try to convince me of their faith.
Who cares when error congratulates error. LOL.., 🙂
mr Ritchie,
Trying to seperate your cult from your non-trinitarian partners in crime won’t change that you are indelibly linked.
JW’s espouse the same principles of Arianism that Oneness Pentecostals do.
Both JW’s and Oneness Pentecostals like yourself teach a modified LOGOS doctrine, custom fit to your heresy!
And quoting Tertullian may impress Oneness Minions like M.C. & mr Mecaliman, but not me! Lol.., 🙂
Tertullian is historically said to have used the words, “Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv). “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” The very names “Father” and “Son” indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv. Praxeam, ix).
The New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: that many of Tertullian’s views are completely unacceptable. Some of his teaching on the Trinity the Church rejected as heretical.
There are no are similarities with Arians and Oneness, than trinity and Arians. Most Arians believe Jesus pre-existed Like you. We believe Jesus is God in flesh Arians do not.
tertullian was a historical writer and said Monarchians were in the majority you cannot manipulate history or anything about that to put your group back there.
Bible believing christians like me rather you quote scripture NOT Tertullian.
But from what I have seen you do in the debate with Michael Burgos and in this post is really spew your false teaching & heretical interpretations.
I’m enjoying you guys though. Lol..,
As my original suspicions are confirmed with your every thread. Lol.., 🙂
Michael You spew polytheistic error!
Dang MC get a life, I cant drop consecutive threads cause you live on this post. you creepy dude! LOL.., 🙂
“Bible believing Christian”???? Point me to your bible where trinity is in it? You are no bible believer you are someone who adds your polytheism to the bible and says it there. Just like Jesus said would happen men fell away and believe a lie and add to his word the trinity polytheism.
Classic Cultic behavior.., Lol. 🙂
Well gotta watch some football. later!
Every-time you post I get an alert you emailed me with your hate filled rants from this site.
Mike appears to be playing games rather then having a serious and noble heart before the Lord. I can’t find a single scripture to show that any apostle or prophet ever laughed or made fun of those who were in apostasy. I suggest that we all ignore him. “He that is an heretic after the first and second admonition, REJECT.” We have shared the word of truth with him long enough. The seed has been sown but he has repeatedly rejected it. Now all we can do is pray for him that one day he might see the error of his ways.
For the sake of others who might get confused by Mike’s erroneous statements, I need to comment on Mike’s words:
“JW’s espouse the same principles of Arianism that Oneness Pentecostals do.”
Arianism teaches that Jesus pre-existed as a created Son prior to his birth (like an angelic creature) but Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus pre-existed as the Eternal God (the only true God the Father). Tertullian was also an Arian who wrote in Against Hermogenes chapter 3, “THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A TIME WHEN NEITHER SIN EXISTED WITH HIM, NOR THE SON.” Yet Tertullian acknowledged that the Son was begotten by the Father prior to his birth at Bethlehem when God said, “Let there be light.”
Mike further wrote, “Both JW’s and Oneness Pentecostals like yourself teach a modified LOGOS doctrine, custom fit to your heresy!”
It is the Trinitarians and the Arians who have the self same modified “logos” doctrine as they both teach the same thing. Both Trinitarians and Arians teach that Jesus is another “theos” [god] who is not the only true God [the Father]. Trinitarians teach another coequal God person while Arians teach another lesser god person who is not equal with God. Only Oneness theology believes that the Word which was with God (theos) is that only true God (theos) the Father.
Here is a portion of one of my on line e books on the subject which can be found at apostolicchristianfaith.com
Trinitarians and Arians have to believe that the Greek word “theos” (used twice in John 1:1) has to be speaking of two different God Persons rather than only One true God the Father. Yet there is no evidence in the text to suggest that the word “Theos” for God is speaking about two God Persons. Trinitarians have to believe that the second use of the word “theos” [God] in John 1:1 has to be referring to another equal “theos” [God Person] who is not God the Father. Likewise, Arians (Jehovah’s Witnesses) have to believe that the second use of the word “theos” (for God) has to be a lesser theos [God] who is not God the Father. However, it is absurd to believe that the word “theos”, used twice for God with the conjunction “kai” [and] in between them is speaking about another equal or lesser “theos” (God Person). If another god person was intended, then we should read something like this, “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was another God.” Trinitarian and Arian apologists are left with only their personal bias when they insist that another theos (God Person) is intended beside God the Father.
Both Trinitarians and Arians have to twist the clear meaning of John 1:1 by inserting another god person into the text because the clear meaning of John 1:1 supports Monarchian modalism (the belief that the Word of God is the Word of God the Father). According to Trinitarians and Arians, there are two different God Persons and two different meanings for the word “Word” in scripture. They must believe in the Word of God which is not personal and in another Word which is personal. Since the Word which proceeded forth out of God’s mouth could not be another god person apart from God Himself, they must insist that the use of the Word (Logos) in John 1:1 has to be a reference to another divine person beside God the Father Himself. Therefore they have to twist the scriptures into believing in both two god persons and in two uses of the word “logos,” one for a divine god apart from God the Father, and one for the impersonal Word which proceeds forth out of the mouth of God the Father.
Thus Mike’s condemns his own Trinitarian belief because Trinitarians and Arians have the same modified logos doctrine which is foreign to the scriptural data. Therefore I can rightly turn Mike’s previous statement around by replacing the words Oneness Pentecostals with Trinitarians because Trinitarians have the same modified logos teaching as JW’s:
“Both JW’s and TRINITARIANS like yourself teach a modified LOGOS doctrine, custom fit to your heresy.”
Wherefore, both Arians and Trinitarians believe in two God’s. Arians have another lesser god while Trinitarians have another equal God. Both views are similar in that they pervert the Oneness of God in John 1:1 which leads to idolatry. Therefore both Arians and Trinitarians have more than ONE GOD which is clearly a perversion of the word of God that leads to IDOLATRY!
“I speak the truth in Christ, I LIE NOT.”
Mike, I amen Br. Culwell and any other One God believers who post truth.
Reading the OT I can find no interaction of divine persons or any hint that God is ….3 Persons. I should be able to but it is not there. God is one…over and over. And Jesus did say “we know what we worship” John 4. No hint of a trinity. In the NT we have that same One God (Deut 6:4 – Mal 2:10) exisitng as a real man. Still God everywhere but now manifested in real flesh. This is cleared up in Isa 9:6 > the child born , the son given ..the Mighty God, The Everlasting Father. Jesus is simultaneously Father and Son. John 10:30,33,38
The Interaction in the NT are between Father and Son are a result of the birth of the Holy Child.
Again in John 20:28 “The Lord of Me and the God of Me” leaves no room for other persons called God. That would contradict all of the OT and NT.
…………………
Bro. Ritchie I posted your Debate with Burgos on my Blog on the right hand side of the page at the top titled: Oneness interests.
Brother Culwell (Is it Miculwell as used on YouTube or Culwell?) I would like to read your blog postings and any articles that you may have written. I use allot of the same basic arguments that you have used against Trinitarianism in your debate with James White even though I have not read any of your articles. My books and articles at apostolicchristianfaith.com refutes a Trinitarian pre-incarnational Christ with the same arguments you used in your mini debate with James White. Like yourself, I also proved that the Greek word “logos” is a very common Greek word used throughout the NT for the word of men as well as for the word of God.
I sincerely hope and pray that we can learn from each other to sharpen our skills in debating. The Lord has given me a burden to equip Apostolic Faith Christians (including ordained ministers) for the work of the ministry and to Evangelize Trinitarians, Arians, and Socinians. Can you post the link to your blog for my perusal?
Bro. Ritchie here is the link. I have the very same Burden to help and equip everyone with truth. I have read some of your articles and they look very good. My earlier articles are very rusty but I am trying fix that by getting a secular college education.I have come along way.
http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/
God Bless!
Manuel
Michael – yes or no, did you love your children before they were born? Did you have plans for them? It seems that to be consistent, you have to answer “no.”
Thanks
There is a perfectly evident division between loving someone and loving the idea of someone who doesn’t exist. The texts mentioned in the debate dealt with actual love that was personal rather than ideal. Moreover, having plans for the idea of someone is quite different than having plans for someone. The attempt to idealize the Son of God results in a biblical inability to express actual preexistence.
FW wrote, “There is a perfectly evident division between loving someone and loving the idea of someone who doesn’t exist.”
Finite men may not be able to love the idea of someone who does not yet exist but the infinite God is not like finite men. For God calls the things which do not yet exist as though they existed (Romans 4:17).
FW wrote, “The texts mentioned in the debate dealt with actual love that was personal rather than ideal. Moreover, having plans for the idea of someone is quite different than having plans for someone.”
Of course God spoke in prophetic anticipation of that “actual love” that would be “personal” rather than for an idea. Your statement, “having plans for the idea of someone is quite different than having plans for someone” is nonsensical because the prophetic plans were not for “the idea of someone” but for that actual someone who would actually exist as a child born and son given in the future (Isaiah 9:6 / Jeremiah 23:5-6).
FW wrote, “The attempt to idealize the Son of God results in a biblical inability to express actual preexistence.”
We do not believe that the Son of God pre-existed as a pre-incarnate eternal child born and eternal son given. For the Son was begotten on a specific day in time (Psalm 2:7).
For God the Father said, “I will be to him a Father and he shall be to Me a son” in the future (2 Samuel 7:14 / Hebrews 1:5).
Although the Son did not pre-exist as an eternally begotten son child, He who became that child born and son given is none other then that “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father” Himself. For Jesus is rightly called “The arm of Yahweh (Isaiah 53:1).” Can a man’s own arm be another distinct person from himself? If not, then we know that Jesus is an extension or manifestation of that “Only true God” the Father (John 17:3) who became a man to save us.
yes or no, did you love your children before they were born? Did you have plans for them? It seems that to be consistent, you have to answer “no.”
I forgot to answer Tim’s question. “yes or no, did you love your children before they were born? Did you have plans for them? It seems that to be consistent, you have to answer “no.”
Since the Eternal God can call the things that do not exist as though they already existed (Romans 4:17) we know that God often prophetically speaks of future events as if they already took place. This is why Revelation 13:8 already speaks of the Lamb being slain from the very creation of the world. Hence, in God’s mind the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were already accomplished events before the world was even created.
Although I cannot say that I already “KNEW” my children and “LOVED” them before they were born, the only true God can know and love us before we were born. That is why God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I KNEW YOU … (Jeremiah 1:5). In this sense Jesus could say that the Father loved him before the world was created in John 17. See Ephesians 1:4, 11 / Romans 8:29-30
FW you said
The texts mentioned in the debate dealt with actual love that was personal rather than ideal.
Can you (or anyone else) refresh my memory about what these “personal rather than ideal” verses are and also some examples of “ideal rather than personal” verses about love. You are making some kind of distinction here and it seems like the burden of support is on the one making this argument.
I find the argument that since God is love, he must have had something to love from all time to be curious. My understanding is that the argument is that in order for God to have a loving relationship (an essential property of being a loving being), He also must have had an object of love in all times past.
Would you agree that God is essentially merciful. If so, what was the object of His mercy from all time? If not, then you would agree that at some time in the past or future He could become unmerciful?
Would you agree that God is essentially just? If so, what was the object of His justice from all time? If not, then you would agree that at some time in the past or future He could become unjust?
Yeah curious indeed! The scriptures also say: God is a consuming fire… So I wonder if maybe there was another member of God he burned up in eternity since it demands there is an object of all of those attributes?
If God is timeless, would He need an object of Love in all times past? If God is a God of real time than this argument works, but God is eternal and knows the beginning from the end.
Also, if you say the Trinity offers some object for each member to Love, (that is to say the Father can love the Son, the Son can love the Spirit, and the Spirit can love the Father) wouldn’t that be tri-theistic or the view of three god’s? If they are in fact one and the same, how can they be objects of love for each other?
Chris are you Trinitarain,Oneness, or Arian? What you have submitted works well for Oneness.
I am Oneness. When I was in my teens I asked why so many other churches taught the Trinity, so I started to question what I believe. The more I studied, the more clear it became that Oneness makes (to me) far more sense.
How can God be one and have three persons (or centers of consciousness)? Some believe there will be more than one throne in Heaven. If there is more than one throne, there is more than one God.
Isaiah 44:24 “…I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” If God is a Trinity, would He truly be alone? I cannot figure out how God can be by Himself if He is a multi-person God. In the book by Rick Warren (Purpose Driven Life) chapter 2 I believe he tells us that God doesn’t need us because He has His holy Trinity. This is why I can’t believe in that doctrine. God somehow becomes plural.
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” We are told in Genesis that we were made in God’s image. If so, how can we explain our own oneness? If God is a Trinity, why aren’t we? Also, I cannot explain the Trinity by the creation of the world. Paul said “…even his eternal power and Godhead”.
If there were good reasonable answers to these questions, I would consider it. But Oneness makes perfect sense to me. God is wholly one. The fullness of God dwelt in Christ. That’s why Jesus said “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:10) If the eternal Son was the one incarnate, why didn’t Jesus say the works were of the Son?
Christ is Emmanuel (God with us!)
Chris,Very good! God Bless!
Tim wrote, “The texts mentioned in the debate dealt with actual love that was personal rather than ideal.”
Not a single verse of scripture ever says that Jesus actually knew the Father before his birth. Jesus never said, “I knew You (the Father) before the world was?” I challenge any Trinitarian to supply a single verse to prove that the Father and Son actually experienced a loving relationship before Christ’s birth.
God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you (Jeremiah 1:5).” Was this an actual knowing relationship between God the Father and Jeremiah or was this a prophetic anticipatory knowing relationship? Could God and Jeremiah have actually known each other before Jeremiah’s birth? Just as God already knew His elect and gave them glory (Ephes. 1:4 /Romans 8:29-30), so also did God already know and give glory to Christ (John 17:5) as a genuine human Son.
Brother Manuel brought up the best point I have ever heard to rebut the Trinitarian argument that God must have had an object to love in order to be a God of love when he wrote, “The scriptures also say: God is a consuming fire … So I wonder if maybe there was another member of God he burned up in eternity since it demands there is an object of all of those attributes?”
If one attribute of God must have had an object to demonstrate that attribute throughout eternity past, then so must all of God’s attributes. Did God have to have an object of Judgment to be a God of judgment? Must God have had someone to burn up in order to be “a consuming fire” throughout eternity past? Would it makes any sense to believe that the three coequal divine persons of an alleged trinity had to have judged and burned up each other throughout eternity past? Therefore the Trinitarian argument which asserts that God has to have an object of love in order to be a God of love is completely ridiculous!
Thanks brother Manuel! Great job!!!
I meant to write in my above post, “Not a single verse of scripture ever says that Jesus actually LOVED the Father before his birth. Jesus never said, “I LOVED You (the Father) before the world was?” Jesus said that God the Father loved him but he never said, “I loved You” before creation. I challenge any Trinitarian to supply a single verse to prove that the Father and Son actually experienced a loving relationship before Christ’s birth.”
Bro. Ritchie, Good argument. That is like God the Father never being called the Father of God. But that is the result of trinity false doctrine that leads us to that conclusion.