# Christian Mystics



## Jared

I know that some of you would disagree with some of the xperiences that the Christian mystics claimed to have. My thread is not concerning the experiences they claimed to have primarily. I'm just wondering, since most if not all of them were Catholics, if they believed in justification by faith alone. The people that I am mainly talking about are folks like St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, and Brother Lawrence.


----------



## Witsius

At the risk of being criticized for not backing it up (due to a move in progress, etc.),
I will respond: by what little I have read on the subject (some of Underhill, McGinn, Lawrence, Guyon, etc.) I would have to conclude - NO!
For a good, modern, intro. see Amazon.ca: The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism: Bernard Mcginn: Books
McGinn's selection of mystics with commentary, rather than his opus Christian Spirituality (3 vols.).


----------



## Leslie

I'm familiar with Brother Lawrence and love him, but not with the others. What was the nature of their mystical experiences? Was the OP question intended to ascertain their status as elect or reprobate, or as theological identical twins within the category of the elect?


----------



## Witsius

Sorry, you lost me there.


----------



## Leslie

I'm wondering if the OP implies that if the mystics did not have a kosher understanding of salvation by "faith alone", they were therefore reprobate? It seems to me, in the case of Brother Lawrence, that his love of God and daily walk with Him were so exemplary, it's beyond dispute (assuming that the writing was not falsified) that he was elect. While I believe in salvation by grace alone (also faith alone if that implies a commitment to obedience), it seems to me that a humble, loving, creaturely stance relative to God is the essential evidence of regeneration. Precise, correct doctrine is desirable, but a submissive, loving heart is, in the sight of God, of much greater value, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Jared

Leslie said:


> I'm wondering if the OP implies that if the mystics did not have a kosher understanding of salvation by "faith alone", they were therefore reprobate? It seems to me, in the case of Brother Lawrence, that his love of God and daily walk with Him were so exemplary, it's beyond dispute (assuming that the writing was not falsified) that he was elect. While I believe in salvation by grace alone (also faith alone if that implies a commitment to obedience), it seems to me that a humble, loving, creaturely stance relative to God is the essential evidence of regeneration. Precise, correct doctrine is desirable, but a submissive, loving heart is, in the sight of God, of much greater value, In my humble opinion.



I think you are probably right about Brother Lawrence. I heard Dr. David Calhoun from Covenant Theological Seminary say that he believed that Brother Lawrence held to justification by faith alone based on some of the things that he had read by him. 

I don't know that I would always say that someone is saved because their life seems to suggest that. Tommy Tenney seems to me to have a deep relationship with God, yet he is a oneness Pentecostal. Maybe some of these people could be saved out of ignorance. 

In the case of Catholics, I believe that some of them are saved. Yet, I believe that the ones who are saved are saved because they read what the Bible says regarding justification. 

In the case of oneness Pentecostals, I don't see how they can be saved because they cannot believe that Jesus is the Son of God since they deny the doctrine of the trinity, if they believe what their church teaches. How can Jesus be the Son of God if their is no Father? As I said, perhaps (and hopefully) some of them are saved out of ignorance. Maybe they read the scripture and hold the scripture in higher regard than the teachings of their church.


----------



## Jared

I'm not really sure as to the extent of the experiences of the Christian mystics. I have heard stories. Don't know whether the sources were reliable though.


----------



## JBaldwin

While Christian mysticism is highly suspect when it comes to theology, I do know a lot of believers who got trapped in it for a while (as I was). In those circles, Brother Lawrence, Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, are all popular names as are Amy Carmichael, A. W. Tozer and Oswald Chambers. While the first group are more catholic in their approach, they all seem to have one thing in common and that is some "deeper life" relationship with Christ that is only attainable by doing something. (i.e. closing yourself in up in a room and fasting and praying for days, separating yourself from people and the world in order to become more spiritual, etc. 

As I see it, it is nothing more than works salvation and/or sanctification (depending on which group you are involved with).


----------



## Christusregnat

Jared,

I cannot directly answer your question about those particular "saints", but I would like to add a general comment.

Mysticism is defined as follows:

mys·ti·cism (mst-szm) n.
1.a. _Immediate consciousness_ of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities _beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension_ that are central to being and directly accessible by _subjective experience_.

mysticism - definition of mysticism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So, if this is an accurate definition of mysticism, then anyone who is a mystic is NOT a Christian. Several things about mysticism are anti-christian:

1. The belief in immediate consciousness of God, rather than mediated consciousness of God. God has exalted His Word above all of His Name, and therefore, anyone seeking to be conscious about God without a mediated revelation of the content of such consciousness is in rebellion.

2. The belief that such realities are "beyond intellectual apprehension" and therefore "accessible by subjective experience." God's Word is a clear Word: it is NOT "beyond intellectual apprehension". Man may refuse to hear it because he doesn't like it, but the point is that he knows what it says. Man is the image of God. As such, he was created in knowledge, with the capacity to intellectually apprehend propositions revealed by God. If this were not the case, there would be no such a thing as logic, or conscience, or truth. All would be subjected to man's experience of the divine. This is the basic idea of liberalism: deny the image of God, and make god the subject of our own experiences.


This is why mystics reject the propositions revealed by God in the Scripture. One, for instance, being justification by God's grace, through the work of Christ, received by faith alone. l don't think that the doctrine of justification is their _basic_ problem. Rather, the basic problem I would identify is their refusal to accept what God created them to be, and how God mediates His messages to men.

Cheers,

Adam





Jared104 said:


> I know that some of you would disagree with some of the xperiences that the Christian mystics claimed to have. My thread is not concerning the experiences they claimed to have primarily. I'm just wondering, since most if not all of them were Catholics, if they believed in justification by faith alone. The people that I am mainly talking about are folks like St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, and Brother Lawrence.


----------



## Leslie

I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.


----------



## KMK

Leslie said:


> I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.



What do you mean by putting an 'undue' emphasis on confessions?

And do you see an emphasis on confessions and sola scriptura as mutually exclusive?

Are you saying that one can believe that Christ is not God in the flesh and still be saved?


----------



## staythecourse

I would back away from Oneness Pentacostalism quickly, Mary. They have a different God which is no God at all.

This is a version of modalism which threatened the church back in the 300's. The church fathers defended the church against Sabellianism/modalism heresies that were poisoning in the church 

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen. 

The Oneness Pentecostals may be sweet people, but so are Mormons and JW in many cases. Beware. They are heretics.


----------



## KMK

staythecourse said:


> I would back away from Oneness Pentacostalism quickly, Mary. They have a different God which is no God at all.
> 
> This is a version of modalism which threatened the church back in the 300's. The church fathers defended the church against Sabellianism/modalism heresies that were poisoning in the church
> 
> We believe in one God,
> the Father, the Almighty,
> maker of heaven and earth,
> of all that is, seen and unseen.
> 
> We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God,
> eternally begotten of the Father,
> God from God, light from light,
> true God from true God,
> begotten, not made,
> of one Being with the Father;
> through him all things were made.
> For us and for our salvation
> he came down from heaven,
> was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
> and became truly human.
> For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> he suffered death and was buried.
> On the third day he rose again
> in accordance with the Scriptures;
> he ascended into heaven
> and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
> and his kingdom will have no end.
> 
> We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
> who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
> who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
> who has spoken through the prophets.
> We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
> We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
> We look for the resurrection of the dead,
> and the life of the world to come. Amen.
> 
> The Oneness Pentecostals may be sweet people, but so are Mormons and JW in many cases. Beware. They are heretics.



They are are also sneaky people. They do not let you in on their unorthodox views at first. They pretend to be in agreement so as to gain a foothold in your fellowship. Once they earn your trust, they seek to leaven the lump a little at a time.


----------



## py3ak

Mysticism that seeks in any way to bypass God's ordained means of grace is ultimately destructive, no matter what the character of its proponents. And that brings up another important point: while holiness is in some respects a visible quality, we need to remember (1) that Satan's ministers are transformed into angels of light, and will therefore receive some help in looking good, (2) that John gives us a very definite doctrinal test, even in the midst of an epistle concerned with the practical aspects of Christianity (1 John 2:22). Regardless of lifestyle, the one who denies certain critical doctrines, as that Jesus is the Christ, is a liar and antichrist.


----------



## Christusregnat

Leslie,

What you have stated below is mysticism, and is therefore not a Christian position.

Christ did not separate doctrine and practice. Nor did the prophets, nor did the Apostles, nor has the church.

If we say that man doesn't need to have his doctrine right, he just needs to be a good person, this itself is an attack on the plain statements of Scripture such as:


John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my *saying*, he shall never see death. 

The term "saying" in Greek is <<logon>>, and refers to doctrine, teaching, communicated theology, etc. If we refuse the doctrine of Christ, the teaching of Scripture, we will see death. if we keep the doctrine Christ teaches, we shall never see death. 

Also, please consider the following admonition by the Apostle Paul to his true son Timothy:

I Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto *the doctrine*; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both *save thyself, and them that hear thee*.

Scripture NEVER divides our persoal living from doctrinal purity. If we depart from sound doctrine, we will end up in hell. If we depart from sound living, which accords with sound doctrine, we will end up in hell. Scripture never separates the two, as your post seems to imply.

Cheers,

Adam










Leslie said:


> I'm wondering if the OP implies that if the mystics did not have a kosher understanding of salvation by "faith alone", they were therefore reprobate? It seems to me, in the case of Brother Lawrence, that his love of God and daily walk with Him were so exemplary, it's beyond dispute (assuming that the writing was not falsified) that he was elect. While I believe in salvation by grace alone (also faith alone if that implies a commitment to obedience), it seems to me that a humble, loving, creaturely stance relative to God is the essential evidence of regeneration. Precise, correct doctrine is desirable, but a submissive, loving heart is, in the sight of God, of much greater value, In my humble opinion.


----------



## py3ak

Good posting, Adam! In fact, I think it would be quite Biblical to affirm that maintaining false teaching _is_ sin, and therefore antithetical to holiness. I suppose we're used to the fact that someone might be a liar, a cheat, a thief, a gossip and an idler without therefore being a murderer or adulterer. Well, in the same way, a man can sin by upholding false doctrine even if at the same time he doesn't happen to be arrogant or harsh. People sin in different ways, but intellectual sin is no less wicked than practical sin.


----------



## Reformed Christian

Spurgeon said in light of the Downgrade Controversy, "I am content to be thought by many an inconsistent man."

Praise God that so many are inconsistent with their own positions. There are many Catholic mystics, just as their are many fundamental Independent Baptists, who deny "theologically" the propositional truths of the gospel - the one denying "salvation by faith alone" and the latter placing the emphasis on man's free will. However, at the end of the day, many in both camps are "inconsistent" practically - and because of the work of the Spirit of God trust wholly upon the person of Christ and Christ alone.

That is not to say that false doctrine is not sin or that there is no such thing as "damnable heresy." If a person is trusting in a Christ, who is no Christ (such as Oneness Pentecostals) they are lost. However, a person may be sitting in the pew hearing the word of God preached and the Spirit of God quicken their hearts and bring them to Christ - and they truly trust in the Savior of the World, the Lord Jesus - yet be later taught that he is nothing more than a "manifestation" of One God.

We are safe to say, "repent for your false view of the God of heaven." But I would not condemn them to hell, when he may be a child of God in gross error or even heresy - and ignorant.


----------



## toddpedlar

Leslie said:


> I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.



It has been said a number of times already, but let me say this directly. Their view of the trinity is FAR more than "different" - it is RANK HERESY. I'm sure there were Arians in the early church whose walks were "exemplary", but they were heretics nevertheless. The Christian life is no more "only about doctrine" than it is "only about the quality of one's 'walk'". A man can be the most peaceable person on the face of the earth, and a hell-bound pagan. 

To argue for the orthodox (NOT JUST REFORMED) doctrine of the Trinity is so far from "having an undue emphasis on the confessions" that it is not even funny. This is orthodox Christianity, Mary. We're not talking about the issue of when the Sabbath begins, is it sunset, or sunrise... this is the HEART of Christianity!


----------



## KMK

py3ak said:


> Good posting, Adam! In fact, I think it would be quite Biblical to affirm that maintaining false teaching _is_ sin, and therefore antithetical to holiness. I suppose we're used to the fact that someone might be a liar, a cheat, a thief, a gossip and an idler without therefore being a murderer or adulterer. Well, in the same way, a man can sin by upholding false doctrine even if at the same time he doesn't happen to be arrogant or harsh. People sin in different ways, but intellectual sin is no less wicked than practical sin.





'Heresies' are listed as a lust of the flesh in Gal 5.


----------



## fredtgreco

Leslie said:


> I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.



The theology of a person does not need to be perfect in order for him to be saved. It may even be (and I have seen this) that someone who has deficient theology would have a closer walk with the Lord than someone whose theology is "better."

But you are talking about a central issue. A true Oneness Pentecostal cannot rely on "_the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation_." Why? Because a Oneness Pentecostal cannot believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity- God who _became_ man to die on a cross for his sins. The Oneness Jesus is a facade; he is God pretending to be another person (since he is not) taking on a role (hence the term "Modalism."). This has absolutely nothing to do with "Confessions." This is not a "Reformed" view. It is not just an Arminian view. It is a Roman Catholic view. It is an Eastern Orthodox view. It is the view of every branch of the visible church.

The Oneness Pentecostal denies the truth of Scripture that God is One and yet is Three. He must of necessity deny the "God sent His son" because they are the same person. He must deny Christ praying to His Father in John 17, because they are the same person to him. He must deny that Christ offered himself through the eternal Spirit, because they are the same person to him. Almost every truth about God in the NT is a lie for the Oneness Pentecostal. The Oneness Pentecostal's view of God is deficient even when compared to an NT era Jew's, and we see what our Lord thought about him.

A Christian must be Trinitarian. This has always been the case: from the Apostle's Creed, to Peter's sermons in Acts. There cannot be the slightest compromise on this, for it makes my Jesus a cruel mocking joke. He is not God, nor the Son of God, according to the Oneness Pentecostal. He is a play being put on by a lying God. That is simply unacceptable.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jared

fredtgreco said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theology of a person does not need to be perfect in order for him to be saved. It may even be (and I have seen this) that someone who has deficient theology would have a closer walk with the Lord than someone whose theology is "better."
> 
> But you are talking about a central issue. A true Oneness Pentecostal cannot rely on "_the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation_." Why? Because a Oneness Pentecostal cannot believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity- God who _became_ man to die on a cross for his sins. The Oneness Jesus is a facade; he is God pretending to be another person (since he is not) taking on a role (hence the term "Modalism."). This has absolutely nothing to do with "Confessions." This is not a "Reformed" view. It is not just an Arminian view. It is a Roman Catholic view. It is an Eastern Orthodox view. It is the view of every branch of the visible church.
> 
> The Oneness Pentecostal denies the truth of Scripture that God is One and yet is Three. He must of necessity deny the "God sent His son" because they are the same person. He must deny Christ praying to His Father in John 17, because they are the same person to him. He must deny that Christ offered himself through the eternal Spirit, because they are the same person to him. Almost every truth about God in the NT is a lie for the Oneness Pentecostal. The Oneness Pentecostal's view of God is deficient even when compared to an NT era Jew's, and we see what our Lord thought about him.
> 
> A Christian must be Trinitarian. This has always been the case: from the Apostle's Creed, to Peter's sermons in Acts. There cannot be the slightest compromise on this, for it makes my Jesus a cruel mocking joke. He is not God, nor the Son of God, according to the Oneness Pentecostal. He is a play being put on by a lying God. That is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...


I agree. In the oneness Pentecostal view, you cannot have a substitutionary atonement because if Jesus is not really the Son of God, but only playing a role, then he cannot bare the Father's wrath for sin. There is no possibility for propitiation in modalism.


----------



## ReformedDave

Leslie said:


> I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.



On a psychological level I fight with this. I was raised in the UPC and my father was a minister for over 50 years. The current general superintendent is my first cousin. They appear to live very consecrated lives and of coarse I love them but they a 100% wrong and according to my understanding it pains me but I must say they preach a different gospel.


----------



## KMK

fredtgreco said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theology of a person does not need to be perfect in order for him to be saved. It may even be (and I have seen this) that someone who has deficient theology would have a closer walk with the Lord than someone whose theology is "better."
> 
> But you are talking about a central issue. A true Oneness Pentecostal cannot rely on "_the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation_." Why? Because a Oneness Pentecostal cannot believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity- God who _became_ man to die on a cross for his sins. The Oneness Jesus is a facade; he is God pretending to be another person (since he is not) taking on a role (hence the term "Modalism."). This has absolutely nothing to do with "Confessions." This is not a "Reformed" view. It is not just an Arminian view. It is a Roman Catholic view. It is an Eastern Orthodox view. It is the view of every branch of the visible church.
> 
> The Oneness Pentecostal denies the truth of Scripture that God is One and yet is Three. He must of necessity deny the "God sent His son" because they are the same person. He must deny Christ praying to His Father in John 17, because they are the same person to him. He must deny that Christ offered himself through the eternal Spirit, because they are the same person to him. Almost every truth about God in the NT is a lie for the Oneness Pentecostal. The Oneness Pentecostal's view of God is deficient even when compared to an NT era Jew's, and we see what our Lord thought about him.
> 
> A Christian must be Trinitarian. This has always been the case: from the Apostle's Creed, to Peter's sermons in Acts. There cannot be the slightest compromise on this, for it makes my Jesus a cruel mocking joke. He is not God, nor the Son of God, according to the Oneness Pentecostal. He is a play being put on by a lying God. That is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...


Great post, Rev Greco!

Would you say that, salvifically, there is a difference between not understanding the trinity and denying it outright? If a 'fully-orbed' knowledge is essential, then what of those Christians who lived in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century?


----------



## fredtgreco

KMK said:


> Would you say that, salvifically, there is a difference between not understanding the trinity and denying it outright? If a 'fully-orbed' knowledge is essential, then what of those Christians who lived in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century?



Ken,

I think that there is a difference. After all, the Church did not come to a full understanding of all the Trinitarian issues for some time (as you point out). What I think is essential is understanding that Jesus is God, and that He is distinct from the Father. That Oneness Pentecostalism denies outright.


----------



## staythecourse

fredtgreco said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that, salvifically, there is a difference between not understanding the trinity and denying it outright? If a 'fully-orbed' knowledge is essential, then what of those Christians who lived in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I think that there is a difference. After all, the Church did not come to a full understanding of all the Trinitarian issues for some time (as you point out). What I think is essential is understanding that Jesus is God, and that He is distinct from the Father. That Oneness Pentecostalism denies outright.
Click to expand...


Harumph.


----------



## ReformedWretch

staythecourse said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that, salvifically, there is a difference between not understanding the trinity and denying it outright? If a 'fully-orbed' knowledge is essential, then what of those Christians who lived in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I think that there is a difference. After all, the Church did not come to a full understanding of all the Trinitarian issues for some time (as you point out). What I think is essential is understanding that Jesus is God, and that He is distinct from the Father. That Oneness Pentecostalism denies outright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harumph.
Click to expand...



????


----------



## fredtgreco

PuritanBouncer said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I think that there is a difference. After all, the Church did not come to a full understanding of all the Trinitarian issues for some time (as you point out). What I think is essential is understanding that Jesus is God, and that He is distinct from the Father. That Oneness Pentecostalism denies outright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harumph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ????
Click to expand...


I agree. What do you mean by Harumph? Was I unclear? Uncharitable?


----------



## staythecourse

My mistake. That was an whole-heated agreement "harumph". We had a thread on wanting more than just a "thanks" button. It's from Blazing Saddles. I am enjoying the thread Pastor Fred and Pastor Ken, et al.


----------



## Leslie

KMK said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending the oneness Pentecostal doctrine. However, I've known some of them with exemplary walks with God: an appreciation of their own sinfulness and reliance on the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation. Their understanding of the trinity is different, that there is one person with three manifestations. In my humble opinion it is only by putting undue emphasis on confessions, moving away from sola scriptura, that one can make the Reformed view of the trinity into the shibboleth of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theology of a person does not need to be perfect in order for him to be saved. It may even be (and I have seen this) that someone who has deficient theology would have a closer walk with the Lord than someone whose theology is "better."
> 
> But you are talking about a central issue. A true Oneness Pentecostal cannot rely on "_the substitutionary atonement as their only hope of salvation_." Why? Because a Oneness Pentecostal cannot believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity- God who _became_ man to die on a cross for his sins. The Oneness Jesus is a facade; he is God pretending to be another person (since he is not) taking on a role (hence the term "Modalism."). This has absolutely nothing to do with "Confessions." This is not a "Reformed" view. It is not just an Arminian view. It is a Roman Catholic view. It is an Eastern Orthodox view. It is the view of every branch of the visible church.
> 
> The Oneness Pentecostal denies the truth of Scripture that God is One and yet is Three. He must of necessity deny the "God sent His son" because they are the same person. He must deny Christ praying to His Father in John 17, because they are the same person to him. He must deny that Christ offered himself through the eternal Spirit, because they are the same person to him. Almost every truth about God in the NT is a lie for the Oneness Pentecostal. The Oneness Pentecostal's view of God is deficient even when compared to an NT era Jew's, and we see what our Lord thought about him.
> 
> A Christian must be Trinitarian. This has always been the case: from the Apostle's Creed, to Peter's sermons in Acts. There cannot be the slightest compromise on this, for it makes my Jesus a cruel mocking joke. He is not God, nor the Son of God, according to the Oneness Pentecostal. He is a play being put on by a lying God. That is simply unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great post, Rev Greco!
> 
> Would you say that, salvifically, there is a difference between not understanding the trinity and denying it outright? If a 'fully-orbed' knowledge is essential, then what of those Christians who lived in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century?
Click to expand...


I agree with you totally that it is not logical for a oneness pentecostal to believe in the atonement as described in the scripture. However, I'm merely saying that some of them do so. Aren't we all illogical in some of our beliefs? In doing so they are inconsistent. I'm not for a moment advocating a oneness theory or saying, either, that it's unimportant. Many godly people genuinely walk with God and yet have weird ideas on this or that. If a person's core, guiding theology is trinitarian and yet he or she holds to an illogical, inconsistent oneness theory, is that person automatically reprobate? I don't think so but am willing to be corrected on this.


----------



## toddpedlar

Leslie said:


> I agree with you totally that it is not logical for a oneness pentecostal to believe in the atonement as described in the scripture. However, I'm merely saying that some of them do so. Aren't we all illogical in some of our beliefs? In doing so they are inconsistent. I'm not for a moment advocating a oneness theory or saying, either, that it's unimportant. Many godly people genuinely walk with God and yet have weird ideas on this or that. If a person's core, guiding theology is trinitarian and yet he or she holds to an illogical, inconsistent oneness theory, is that person automatically reprobate? I don't think so but am willing to be corrected on this.



Oneness Pentecostalism is NOT Trinitarian. Modalism is NOT Trinitarian. they are NOT Christian religions, any more than Mormonism is. These are heretical faiths, and one who follows them, and truly does not know Christ as the Son of God, the second person of the trinity, fully God and fully man, distinct in person from the Father and Spirit, but together as God in essence, is in all likelihood reprobate, despite "genuine walking with God" as you put it. If one's views of God are as fatally flawed as those of oneness pentecostals, then one doesn't really walk with God, then, do they? They walk with a god of their own imaginations.

I suppose it is possible for someone to be a Trinitarian believer and still be in a Oneness Pentecostal church, but they won't be for long once they recognize that the church teaches heresy. I simply can't see someone having a genuine understanding of the Triune God staying in such a church, but I suppose it could happen. They would have to reject essentially everything their church holds with regard to the Godhead. So someone whose 'core faith is trinitarian' as you suggest either isn't really trinitarian, or is staying in a church whose faith basis is diametrically opposed to their understanding of the Scriptures with respect to God.


----------

