# Evangelical Modalists?



## Jared (Aug 13, 2008)

What should we think about people like Tommy Tenney and Phillips, Craig, & Dean? They all come from a oneness Pentecostal background. 

Do you think that they have a greater chance of being saved than other oneness Pentecostals since they spend a considerable amount of time with people who are not oneness? 

I was just wondering for their sake. I consider the UPC which all of them come from to be heretical. I don't understand how someone can be saved if they don't believe in the trinity. I do hope for their sakes that they are saved.


----------



## the particular baptist (Aug 13, 2008)

If God saved Phillips, Craig, & Dean we would all know it. They would make public their repentance with respect to the oneness heresy.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Aug 13, 2008)

Funny thing about the UPC. Even in spite of their heresy, other pentecostals are hesitant to call them out over it because the UPC also holds to same views of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and charismatic gifts as other pentecostals.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 13, 2008)

Yes, Oneness I would call heresy and the people that hold it as damned. It seems that one can be saved depite much ignorance regarding the Trinity, but not blatant denial of the Trinity.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Aug 13, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, Oneness I would call heresy and the people that hold it as damned. It seems that one can be saved depite much ignorance regarding the Trinity, but not blatant denial of the Trinity.




agreed!

_Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;_ - Athanasian Creed


----------



## Barnpreacher (Aug 13, 2008)

This is the belief statement from Randy Phillip's Promiseland West Church:



> The Godhead
> ( I John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 1 Tim 3:16) We believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority. We believe in the Father who is God Himself, Creator of the universe. {Gen 1:1; John 1:1} We believe that Jesus is the Son of God. (Col 2:9) He suffered, died, was buried, and rose from the dead for our total salvation (Luke 3:21-22; Philippians 2:5-11). We believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through Him (John 3:36; John 3:31-32; John 14:6).We believe that the blood of Jesus Christ atones for our sins and iniquity. It is through His shed blood that we are saved, healed and set free from bondage and the forces of darkness (Romans 5:9-11; Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 12:11). We believe in the Holy Spirit who is God indwelling, empowering and regenerating the believer. This Holy Spirit is called the Comforter. The Spirit of Truth (John 14:17, 14:26).



PromiseLand West - Belief Statement


----------



## Davidius (Aug 13, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> This is the belief statement from Randy Phillip's Promiseland West Church:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Triune in his *manifestation*.


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 13, 2008)

The Corinthians were saved, and many didn't believe in a resurrection! It comes down to looking alone to the snake on the pole for your salvation, in my opinion. The rest is sanctification, not a prerequisite for justification.

Blessings!


----------



## Jared (Aug 13, 2008)

pilgrim3970 said:


> Funny thing about the UPC. Even in spite of their heresy, other pentecostals are hesitant to call them out over it because the UPC also holds to same views of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and charismatic gifts as other pentecostals.



That's not true. I grew up Pentecostal and there are a number of differences. Here are a few places that the modern day Assemblies of God differs from the UPC:

1. No dress code
2. No belief in baptismal regeneration
3. No belief in necessity of baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation with the evidence of speaking in other tongues

The Assemblies of God in its earlier days was more of a holiness church and the women were expected to only wear dresses and not wear makeup etc., but they have since become more relaxed and have lost their emphasis on outward forms of legalistic "holiness". A/G has never endorsed baptismal regeneration to my knowledge. And they believe the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues to be optional. They encourage people to seek that experience, but they do not believe that it is necessary for salvation.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 13, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> The Corinthians were saved, and many didn't believe in a resurrection! It comes down to looking alone to the snake on the pole for your salvation, in my opinion. The rest is sanctification, not a prerequisite for justification.
> 
> Blessings!



Charles,

Paul tells the Corinthians that if they did not believe in a resurrection of the dead, then they were going to hell. Paul writes under the assumption that all in the visible church are elect (this is a judgment of charity), but then he calls them to repentance for their heretical beliefs because they would end up in hell if they didn't:



> 1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 *Unto the church of God* which is at Corinth, to *them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints*, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:



and



> 1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also *ye are saved*, _*if ye keep in memory*_ what I preached unto you, *unless ye have believed in vain*.



Note that avoiding the wrong propositions about the subject matter that follows is part of the perseverance of the saints. If someone falls away from the following propositions, he has believed in vain. In other words, it was all to no purpose, and they are "yet in their sins" (v.17). The same thing could be said for other "vitals of religion", such as "Who is God?" "How is one reconciled to God?" etc.

Cheers,


----------



## Dearly Bought (Aug 13, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> The Corinthians were saved, and many didn't believe in a resurrection! It comes down to looking alone to the snake on the pole for your salvation, in my opinion. The rest is sanctification, not a prerequisite for justification.
> 
> Blessings!



Brother, I must strongly warn you that Paul writes exactly the opposite. It is certainly apparent that there were some in the congregation at Corinth who were denying the resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15:12). However, his response is unavoidably clear:
1 Corinthians 15:13-14 (ESV)
But if there is no resurrection of the dead,then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and _*your faith is in vain*_.​
Justification certainly does not come by the means of being able to write a definition of the resurrection or the Trinity in a theological dictionary. However, I will not acknowledge anyone as a believer who openly denies the cardinal doctrines of Christian faith. Paul basically tells the Corinthians, "If this is what you believe, then you have no hope."


----------



## Barnpreacher (Aug 13, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > This is the belief statement from Randy Phillip's Promiseland West Church:
> ...



Right.

There is definitely some sketchy wording going on there in the definition of the Godhead according to the Promised Land Church.


----------



## Jared (Aug 13, 2008)

pilgrim3970 said:


> Funny thing about the UPC. Even in spite of their heresy, other pentecostals are hesitant to call them out over it because the UPC also holds to same views of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and charismatic gifts as other pentecostals.



You are right however in asserting the fact that many Pentecostals do not believe that modalism is a damnable heresy. They disagree with it, but they will not refuse to call oneness Pentecostals brothers and sisters in Christ. I cannot call someone who denies the very nature of God a brother or sister. Perhaps a few of them are saved, but it would be because they do not openly deny the trinity but are immature believers and happen to attend a oneness church. We should pray for the conversion of all oneness Pentecostals because I fear that as of yet, many of them remain unconverted.


----------



## Kentucky Kid (Aug 13, 2008)

Hello Jared104: Could I ask who are "Tommy Tenney and Phillips, Craig and Dean"? I must of missed something,,,,,,,,,,,,,thanx........................KK


----------



## Jared (Aug 13, 2008)

Kentucky Kid said:


> Hello Jared104: Could I ask who are "Tommy Tenney and Phillips, Craig and Dean"? I must of missed something,,,,,,,,,,,,,thanx........................KK



Tommy Tenney wrote the Book, "The God Chasers". Although it was a popular book, if you're not familiar with Pentecostalism, you may not have heard of it. 

Phillips, Craig, & Dean on the other hand are a very popular CCM group. They had a huge hit with their song, Crucified With Christ back in the 90s. They're right up there with Steven Curtis Chapman and Michael W. Smith.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 13, 2008)

Phillips, Craig & Dean Official Website : PhillipsCraigAndDean.com

Tommy Tenney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't Google wonderful?!


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Aug 13, 2008)

Jared104 said:


> pilgrim3970 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thing about the UPC. Even in spite of their heresy, other pentecostals are hesitant to call them out over it because the UPC also holds to same views of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and charismatic gifts as other pentecostals.
> ...




I also grew up in the Assemblies of God. The AG and the UPC may not agree on certain details but both place a major emphasis on "the experience" and the spiritual gifts. The AG may officially believe the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues to be optional but in practice it is stressed to the point to make one believe otherwise.


----------



## Josiah (Aug 13, 2008)

> The AG may officially believe the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues to be optional but in practice it is stressed to the point to make one believe otherwise.



I think that this must be different from church to church in the AG. My old AG church was more seeker sensitive/broadly evengelical and had less emphasis on baptism in the holy spirit. Sure, we would have conferences where other more "spirit filled" guest speakers would exhort us to manifest and pray for speaking in tounges, prophecy etc, but at the end of the day it seemed that my church was more about avoiding wierder elements of its own theology so as to not scare away the seekers.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 13, 2008)

Josiah said:


> > The AG may officially believe the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues to be optional but in practice it is stressed to the point to make one believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this must be different from church to church in the AG. My old AG church was more seeker sensitive/broadly evengelical and had less emphasis on baptism in the holy spirit. Sure, we would have conferences where other more "spirit filled" guest speakers would exhort us to manifest and pray for speaking in tounges, prophecy etc, but at the end of the day it seemed that my church was more about avoiding wierder elements of its own theology so as to not scare away the seekers.



It seems to be true that there are AG churches that are basically evangelical in their approach with little or no emphasis placed on speaking in tongues. Some don't seem to be that much different than some SBC churches, but that's not really saying much.


----------



## Josiah (Aug 13, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Josiah said:
> 
> 
> > > The AG may officially believe the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues to be optional but in practice it is stressed to the point to make one believe otherwise.
> ...



This is always subject to change. right before I left my AG church in 2003 I knew that alot of the youth were getting involved in other more charismatic churches as well as churches that were more emergent. It seems to be the trend out here in the Seattle are/WA state; you are either Liberal mainline, Broad Evengelical, or Super duper Charismatic. Given the popularity of recent recent (so-called) revivals by men like Todd Bentley and Patricia king, I am sure that more people, young and old will hop on the bandwaggon. I cant blame them (too much) either, with the mush coming from many pulpits, its hard to know what is and is not error, and with error that looks attractive and exciting, its no wonder many people will interested in the charismatic movement.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 13, 2008)

Josiah said:


> I cant blame them (too much) either, with the mush coming from many pulpits, its hard to know what is and is not error, and with error that looks attractive and exciting, its no wonder many people will interested in the charismatic movement.



So it's mush or mania...sad. I think you're right


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 13, 2008)

I definitely agree that modalism is a major error, but how does it deny the gospel to the extent that those who think this way are not saved? There are probably implications of this belief that I do not understand. . .

I really don't know, but it is very hard for me to say that someone who trusts in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of God, for salvation, is not saved. . .


----------



## Jared (Aug 13, 2008)

Ex Nihilo said:


> I definitely agree that modalism is a major error, but how does it deny the gospel to the extent that those who think this way are not saved? There are probably implications of this belief that I do not understand. . .
> 
> I really don't know, but it is very hard for me to say that someone who trusts in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of God, for salvation, is not saved. . .



That's just it, you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God in order to be saved. How can you if there's not Father?


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 13, 2008)

Ex Nihilo said:


> I definitely agree that modalism is a major error, but how does it deny the gospel to the extent that those who think this way are not saved? There are probably implications of this belief that I do not understand. . .
> 
> I really don't know, but it is very hard for me to say that someone who trusts in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of God, for salvation, is not saved. . .



Typically the Oneness Pentecostals with which I am familiar (mostly from Central Louisiana) basically hold to a salvation by works through the following three step formula: 

1. Repentance
2. Immersion in Jesus name (the name of the Trinity not being valid)
3. "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" with evidence of speaking with other tongues


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 14, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > The Corinthians were saved, and many didn't believe in a resurrection! It comes down to looking alone to the snake on the pole for your salvation, in my opinion. The rest is sanctification, not a prerequisite for justification.
> ...



Paul does not say that they are going to hell if they do not believe in the resurrection.......where is that verse???? But, what is he telling them to "keep in memory"? Is it the idea of the resurrection, or that of the work of Christ on their behalf and their faith in such a work to cover them for their sins? I don't intend to debate much with you, for I don't enjoy it and I very much value your posts that you present, for they are edifying to me, and I think we agree on this topic. Perhaps we are just getting off on different tangents of the OP that we see as important to our own perceptions.......let's talk more....


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 14, 2008)

Dearly Bought said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > The Corinthians were saved, and many didn't believe in a resurrection! It comes down to looking alone to the snake on the pole for your salvation, in my opinion. The rest is sanctification, not a prerequisite for justification.
> ...



Rather, I think he is putting before them the absurdity of their own thinking, in order to promote them to godly thinking, instead of proclaiming to them their unregeneracy or non-justification. Think about it.......do all of us line up doctrinally upon our first reception of Christ? And, if not, then what doctrines do we draw the line at for initial faith and assurance of our own salvation????? Does God open the eyes of all to the Trinity at the same time? Does he open us all to the knowledge and convictions of such "truths", which I admit are truths? I'm just saying that, justification is based only upon the work of Christ on our behalf,.....period. There are no prerequisites. All of that is worked out in sanctification. And, sanctification is a process, to which we ought to pay heed to, to be patient with in others, at least to the degree that the Holy Spirit is patient with us with our own hardness.

Blessings and fellowship in love...,


----------



## queenknitter (Aug 14, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely agree that modalism is a major error, but how does it deny the gospel to the extent that those who think this way are not saved? There are probably implications of this belief that I do not understand. . .
> ...



Very, very true. As for their modalism, yes, it's in the documents and it's in the name! But their reasoning is so underdeveloped and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the historic definition of the Trinity, that it's hard to feel anything but deep pity for them, in my opinion. They actually think we trinitarians believe in three gods, but yet they talk about "manifestations" of God which sounds vaguely like "persons." 

Perhaps I misunderstood the conversation I was having with my Oneness friend. Perhaps she was a closet Trinitarian who had learned to talk a Oneness line in her world. I don't know. 

Like I said, pity. 

C


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 14, 2008)

Jared104 said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely agree that modalism is a major error, but how does it deny the gospel to the extent that those who think this way are not saved? There are probably implications of this belief that I do not understand. . .
> ...



Well, it's certainly logically inconsistent, but but if they do indeed believe that Jesus is the Son of God (see the statement of faith above) then their error is one of ignorance, and they could be saved despite holding to inconsistent propositions. I don't think it's fair to take people's beliefs and push them to logical consequences that the person wouldn't claim, as if we think the person must internally be consistent whether they know it or not.

Their beliefs on justification, on the other hand, are another matter. . . 

Pilgrim, I'm somewhat familiar with the Pentecostals' works-salvation teachings. I agree that this is a huge problem, and I _do_ think this is a denial of the gospel, if someone really believes it. My uncertainty was why modalism _alone_ meant a person wasn't saved, but I suppose the two tend to go together. (Is there a reason for this? Is this somehow the consequence of modalism? I am curious.)


----------



## Dearly Bought (Aug 14, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Rather, I think he is putting before them the absurdity of their own thinking, in order to promote them to godly thinking, instead of proclaiming to them their unregeneracy or non-justification. Think about it.......do all of us line up doctrinally upon our first reception of Christ? And, if not, then what doctrines do we draw the line at for initial faith and assurance of our own salvation????? Does God open the eyes of all to the Trinity at the same time? Does he open us all to the knowledge and convictions of such "truths", which I admit are truths? I'm just saying that, justification is based only upon the work of Christ on our behalf,.....period. There are no prerequisites. All of that is worked out in sanctification. And, sanctification is a process, to which we ought to pay heed to, to be patient with in others, at least to the degree that the Holy Spirit is patient with us with our own hardness.
> 
> Blessings and fellowship in love...,



Justification's meritorious cause is surely the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I'm speaking of the instrument by which we embrace Christ our righteousness (Belgic 22). The instrumental means of salvation is faith (Romans 10:8-10). Now, what I'm arguing is that _our faith must appropriate the right object_. As I've stated, one does not need to be able to write an article for a theological dictionary on the Trinity in order to be justified. However, I would strongly contest the idea that anyone can _reject_ Trinitarian orthodoxy and be saved. In such a case, the object of this person's faith is no longer the God of Scripture and hence cannot save them.

As previously mentioned by Pilgrim, this is the overwhelming confession of Christian churches throughout the ages (and my own, by nature of Belgic Article 9):


pilgrim3970 said:


> _Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;_ - Athanasian Creed



There are doctrines that must be believed for salvation (i.e., faith has content). The doctrine of the Trinity is one of them.


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 16, 2008)

Dearly Bought said:


> Justification's meritorious cause is surely the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I'm speaking of the instrument by which we embrace Christ our righteousness (Belgic 22). The instrumental means of salvation is faith (Romans 10:8-10). Now, what I'm arguing is that _our faith must appropriate the right object_. As I've stated, one does not need to be able to write an article for a theological dictionary on the Trinity in order to be justified. However, I would strongly contest the idea that anyone can _reject_ Trinitarian orthodoxy and be saved. In such a case, the object of this person's faith is no longer the God of Scripture and hence cannot save them.
> 
> As previously mentioned by Pilgrim, this is the overwhelming confession of Christian churches throughout the ages (and my own, by nature of Belgic Article 9):
> 
> ...



I agree that faith involves true facts that must be believed. We just perhaps differ somewhat over the degree of understanding of those facts. As I mentioned before, some Corinthians did not believe in the resurrection, and he did not say that they were unbelievers. He truly acknowledged their faith in the work of Christ, but said that it was only for a vain purpose if the resurrection were not so. Understanding is a faculty of ours that is being renewed throughout our sanctification. I just always hesitate to not be patient with new believers over doctrine.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Aug 16, 2008)

Ex Nihilo said:


> I definitely agree that modalism is a major error, but how does it deny the gospel to the extent that those who think this way are not saved? There are probably implications of this belief that I do not understand. . .
> 
> I really don't know, but it is very hard for me to say that someone who trusts in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of God, for salvation, is not saved. . .



It's pretty simple.

Isaiah 48:12-16 teaches that the God of the Bible is triune - one in nature and essence, three in *person*.

To teach any other 'god' (i.e. the modalists 'one God who is one person in three manifestations') is to teach an _idol_.

This is a departure from the _doctrine of Christ_ (2 John 7-11) and therefore one holding to it cannot be said to have the Father or the Son.

The Assemblies of God's doctrinal statement on this is so COOL.
Fundamental Truths (Full Statement)


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 16, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> > Justification's meritorious cause is surely the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I'm speaking of the instrument by which we embrace Christ our righteousness (Belgic 22). The instrumental means of salvation is faith (Romans 10:8-10). Now, what I'm arguing is that _our faith must appropriate the right object_. As I've stated, one does not need to be able to write an article for a theological dictionary on the Trinity in order to be justified. However, I would strongly contest the idea that anyone can _reject_ Trinitarian orthodoxy and be saved. In such a case, the object of this person's faith is no longer the God of Scripture and hence cannot save them.
> ...



When one believes something that is diametrically opposed to the truth, how can you say there is ANY "degree of understanding" of the facts? Diametric opposition is false belief. When God in His very nature is denied, I'm not sure how we can be at all confident that one who holds such beliefs actually believes in the true God.


----------



## jd.morrison (Aug 16, 2008)

"When one believes something that is diametrically opposed to the truth, how can you say there is ANY "degree of understanding" of the facts? Diametric opposition is false belief. When God in His very nature is denied, I'm not sure how we can be at all confident that one who holds such beliefs actually believes in the true God." - Toddpedlar


----------



## jd.morrison (Aug 16, 2008)

If someone does not know the true nature of God then that is evidence that God probably has not revealed Himself to that individual.


----------



## moral necessity (Aug 16, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that faith involves true facts that must be believed. We just perhaps differ somewhat over the degree of understanding of those facts.
> ...



Granted, and thanks for your thougths. One can't believe in a degree of a resurrection. You either believe in it or you don't, right? So, some Corinthians held to a false belief. Yet, many are unsure about certain doctrines, and that of the Trinity as well. But, my main thrust is this: what is required for justification before God? If he justifies us while we are ungodly, then how much understanding is initially required beyond the substitutionary atonement?

Blessings!


----------



## ReformedDave (Aug 16, 2008)

I came out of 40 plus years in the UPC and it is just an observation but many so-called trinitarians are very fuzzy as to the doctrine itself. Many are functioning modalists.


----------



## Neopatriarch (Aug 16, 2008)

ReformedDave said:


> I came out of 40 plus years in the UPC and it is just an observation but many so-called trinitarians are very fuzzy as to the doctrine itself. Many are functioning modalists.



I came out of the UPC as well and my observations agree with yours. I remember exercising my Oneness apologetics with several Trinitarians and witnessing the fuzziness myself.

Probably one of the most difficult problems for Oneness believers is the fact that Jesus uses the plural pronoun "we" when he refers to himself and the Father in his prayer in John 17. If Oneness believers say that the humanity of Jesus was praying to the divinity of Jesus, they fall into the Nestorian heresy (or they have a schizophrenic Jesus). But Jesus is fully God and fully man yet one person. So, you must place the distinction of persons within the deity. This means there is more than one person in the Godhead.

Still, are Oneness believers so wrong in emphasizing that God is one person? Cornelius Van Til asserted that God is one person, didn't he?


----------



## ReformedDave (Aug 17, 2008)

Neopatriarch said:


> Still, are Oneness believers so wrong in emphasizing that God is one person? Cornelius Van Til asserted that God is one person, didn't he?



Read Bahnsen's explanation on the matter.


----------



## GTMOPC (Aug 18, 2008)

Would it be out of the question to present a "what if" question that might challenge our thoughts on this?

What if a person were mentally incapable of grasping such a concept such as the trinity? Like maybe a mentally handicapped person or child. If this person were in such a manner given the light to embrace the gospel but for whatever reason did not possess the ability to understand any number of any other doctrines would they be anathema?

I know "what ifs" are just that, but........what if!?


----------



## Dearly Bought (Aug 18, 2008)

Once more, the debate really isn't whether a certain level of theological articulation is required for salvation. I doubt that you would find anyone on this board disputing that a mentally handicapped person who is incapable of even beginning to understand the basics of Trinitarian doctrine can still be saved.

I (and others) are arguing that a true believer cannot _diametrically oppose/reject_ the doctrine of the Trinity. If you deny the Trinity, you are not my brother in Christ. No exceptions.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 18, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > This is the belief statement from Randy Phillip's Promiseland West Church:
> ...



"Triune in his manifestation." That, of course, is a modalistic statement. God is triune in His very nature - one essence, three persons. He *is* one and He *is* three.


----------



## queenknitter (Aug 19, 2008)

bookslover said:


> "Triune in his manifestation." That, of course, is a modalistic statement. God is triune in His very nature - one essence, three persons. He *is* one and He *is* three.



Okay. I completely agree with you. Totally. 100%. And I completely think that the Oneness Pentecostals leaders are teaching heresy.

But have you ever asked a regular layman what that "manifestation" word means? It's kind of pitiful. And it sounds a lot like "persons." I just wonder if there are a lot of closet Trinitarians in Oneness churches. 

C


----------



## GTMOPC (Aug 19, 2008)

Dearly Bought said:


> Once more, the debate really isn't whether a certain level of theological articulation is required for salvation. I doubt that you would find anyone on this board disputing that a mentally handicapped person who is incapable of even beginning to understand the basics of Trinitarian doctrine can still be saved.
> 
> I (and others) are arguing that a true believer cannot _diametrically oppose/reject_ the doctrine of the Trinity. If you deny the Trinity, you are not my brother in Christ. No exceptions.



My apologies, thanks for the correction. I see the argument now, and I would heartily agree with your position.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 19, 2008)

queenknitter said:


> I just wonder if there are a lot of closet Trinitarians in Oneness churches.



Hopefully. My fear, though, is that there are a lot of closet modalists in Trinitarian churches.


----------

