FW:Tell me Manuel, what do you mean by unscriptural? Do you presume that your modalism is the scriptural explanation? Tell me, do you think Sabellius was correct?
mlculwell: First off, "Modalism" is a name trinity folks have given us that we do not use of ourselves. Second I noticed in your little thesis that you said;" we as Oneness did not exist until 1914." Then you contradict yourself by bringing up Sabellius who existed in the second and third century but before him we know that Praxeas and Noetus also existed who were Ancient Oneness believers, the only way we know about them is through their Enemies writings(The trinitarians) who more than likely destroyed their writings, as they were the dominate and majority belief.
Tertullian who died about (225 A.d.) wrote the following about Praxeas.
"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 very ground that their rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the only true God,not understanding that,although he is the only God he must yet be believed in with his own economy.The numerical order and distribution of the trinity, they assume to be a division of unity".
Tertullian was a Montanus who claimed to be the paraklete(The comforter) and practiced celibacy and said that he was the last great prophet before the end of the world. Which makes him a clear false prophet on all accounts and especially when invented the term unscriptual by the way trinity!
FW:In your juvenile consideration of the things of God, it is not suprising to me that you fail to see the obvious. Jesus said this:
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
mlculwell: The rock was Peters confession thou art the Christ the son of the living God. What Peter did not say and what you are trying to force upon the text is Peter was teaching your false doctrine of "god the son" and that is not Peters confession nor is it scriptures! I certainly agree with peters confession 100% and disagree with yours!
FW:Your deviant view of God was absent for about 97% of the time that Christianity has been in existence.
mlculwell: This very untrue and proved by historical writings of the ancient Oneness enemies whom I believe destroyed their writings as oneness again was the majority belief. The fact of that was seen in the writings of the false prophet whose prophecy did not come to pass nor was he the comforter to whom Tertullian wrote of the Oneness believers in his time!
FW:Only until 1914 did oneness pentecostalism emerge as anything but a historic heresy. Even one of your movements founders recanted of it's nonsense and went on to be a Trinitarian apologist in Canada.
mlculwell: And who would that be? Why would that even matter as we are told that men would be drawn away of false doctrine, even the very elect.
FW:Your movement is just one more legalistic works-based cult that prostitutes the bible and perverts the nature and identity of God. I have destroyed the oneness baptismal soteriology,
mlculwell: UM No, you have not "destroyed anything", you are delusional! You were trying to argue for us that our doctrine is "baptismal regeneration" you began to knock down a strawman argument that we disavow and that is a big fat lie! We get regeneration through the Authority of the spoken literal name Jesus in Baptism, not through baptism! Jesus himself destroyed your doctrine of mental assent in (Luke 24:47) when he said; that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. he told us where the first true message was preached In Jerusalem and almost preached verbatim Peters message in (Acts 2:38) But the Lord cut the head clean off your false doctrine when he said that repentance which cannot be had until you believe and addition to belief and repentance joined by the conjunction *and* remission of sins teaching us you do not get remission of sins at mental assent belief as that is not belief at all.
Further Paul also destroys you false doctrine of mental assent by asking the absurd question:" have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"(Acts 19:2) of disciples of John the Baptist to whom he did not know they were such until he further questioned them.
Further the Lord Jesus totally annihilates your doctrine by saying:whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) This would be an impossibility according to your false doctrine of mental assent.
FW:and I have provided iron clad biblical proof (namley Philipians 5:7-8)that the Son of God is eternal.
mlculwell:No such passage exists but okay I think you meant (Philippians 2:7-8) and according to your so called iron clad proof all you are teaching is polytheism as you have the pre-incarnate God the son equal to god the father if God is equal to God then that for sure is polytheism.Your interpretation is dead wrong!
FW: I will pray for you friend, that your eyes may be opened by my soverign Lord. After all, it is He who ordains all things, even salvation.
mlculwell: I believe God is sovereign but not to the point where I deny his sovereignty and power enough in giving man his own free will and choice and Calvinism is an evil Godless doctrine that makes God more like the Devil as a ,murderer and Rapist forcing his will upon man but your problem is you cannot see how God could be powerful enough to do that, it is you that needs the prayer friend.
5 comments:
I do not hold to some pie in the sky doctrine of "mental ascent." Apparently you are unfamilair with the reformed (and for that matter biblical) understanding of the gospel and saving faith. Faith in Christ Jesus is the means by which sinners recieve the remission of sins, not baptism or anything else. There is no basis for baptism in the name of Jesus and therefore to attribute a work such as baptism to salvation would be work righteousness. Obviously.
Your top apologist David K Bernard has called himself a modalist and your movement modalism. The term is accurate and therefore is applicable to you and your kind.
"The rock was Peters confession thou art the Christ"
I was refering to the last part of the verse that described the viability of the church. Apparently you missed that one. I never said that sabellius was the only modalist, or the first. Your particular brand of oneness beliefs, and modalism in general, were absent from the time of the early heretics until 1914. Only the restorationist would argue otherwise.
"Your interpretation is dead wrong!"
Give me your complete exegesis of Phil 2:5-8 and we shall see whose interpretation stands in light of scripture. Post it at my site please.
FW:I do not hold to some pie in the sky doctrine of "mental ascent."
mlculwell: Yes, you do hold to "mental assent" and I am very familiar with "Reformed doctrine" on just about any given subject. I own about four Books By James White on the subjet of the forgotten trinity Calvinism, and your mental assent view of salvation.
FW:Apparently you are unfamilair with the reformed (and for that matter biblical) understanding of the gospel and saving faith.
mlculwell: Your Reformed view is as far from biblical as the north pole is from a goose neck!
FW:Faith in Christ Jesus is the means by which sinners recieve the remission of sins, not baptism or anything else.
mlculwell: Apparently you had no idea what was I talking about then when I argued against your false doctrine and did not claim Baptismal regeneration making Baptism the savior. Ther is not one iota of an argument from you refuting anything I said you simply repeat the failed mantra of the Reformed's false doctrine.
FW:There is no basis for baptism in the name of Jesus and therefore to attribute a work such as baptism to salvation would be work righteousness.
mlculwell: This is another one of your non-scriptural mantras that nobody ever calls you on! Please point me to the passage that says Baptism is a work?
FW:Obviously.
Your top apologist David K Bernard has called himself a modalist and your movement modalism.
mlculwell:I would like that qoute also? in every qoute From Bernard I read consistently: "Modalism or Modalistic Monarchianism is the term most often used by church historians to describe the oneness view" I have yet to see a quote saying "we call ourselves." Modalists . We were named Modalists by trinity folks!
FW:The term is accurate and therefore is applicable to you and your kind.
mlculwell: Of course you would think that as your kind gave us that name!
"The rock was Peters confession thou art the Christ"
FW:I was refering to the last part of the verse that described the viability of the church. Apparently you missed that one. I never said that sabellius was the only modalist, or the first. Your particular brand of oneness beliefs, and modalism in general, were absent from the time of the early heretics until 1914.
mlculwell: Your group is full of liars and murderers and we know absolutely nothing about Sabellius as we only get what any of those ancient folks believed from your group which sought to destroy them.
FW:Only the restorationist would argue otherwise.
mlculwell: All Christians should seek to model themselves after the original New Testamnt church that you trinitarains as Catholics Hid the Gospel and the Bible from the common man.
"Your interpretation is dead wrong!"
FW:Give me your complete exegesis of Phil 2:5-8 and we shall see whose interpretation stands in light of scripture. Post it at my site please.
mlculwell: I already did it is not teaching God was equal to God! And it is not teaching anything a pre-incarnate "god the son" the only pre-incarnation is of God the father who came and indwelt the son.
"I already did it is not teaching God was equal to God!"
"Most certainly the passage is distinguishing the father and son but not as persons of god and the term persons is not even found in the text.The distinction is between the spirit of God and the flesh."
This is what you think the passage was saying? Let me help you.
Philippians 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Though "he" was in the form of God; the "he" is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The word used here for form is the word morfe, and it refers to appearence. The form of God is spirit, and therefore Jesus was in spirit form, the same form as the Father.
"he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
This describes the Son as active prior to creation, in that He, that is the Son, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. The text also distinguishes Jesus from God. The term Theos generally in the NT refers to the Father only.
"but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. "
This provides us with a timeframe of the previous verse; it was prior to the incarnation. Notice that it was Jesus, who is distinct in the verse from the Father, who made Himself nothing. That is, Jesus, the Son of God, made Himself nothing. He was submissive before the incarnation and submissive to the Father after, during His work while in flesh. It was the Son who was obedient to the Father, it was the Son who gave His life. Obedience is an impossibility in the modalsitic understanding of God.
mlculwell:I already did it is not teaching God was equal to God!"
"Most certainly the passage is distinguishing the father and son but not as persons of god and the term persons is not even found in the text.The distinction is between the spirit of God and the flesh."
FW:This is what you think the passage was saying? Let me help you.
Philippians 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
FW:Though "he" was in the form of God; the "he" is Jesus Christ,
mlculwell: "Christ" is a term only in relation to the humanity which was incarnated by God the father it means Messiah in the Hebrew.
The Jews were waiting for the Messiah and further the passage reads let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. The passage is not speaking about a pre-incarnate "god the son."
FW:the Son of God. The word used here for form is the word morfe, and it refers to appearence. The form of God is spirit, and therefore Jesus was in spirit form, the same form as the Father.
mlculwell: Oh it does, does it?
We are not talking about: metmorphasis, something
mystical that you are looking for, the word simply means *form* and is the same Greek word used for the form of a servant..(Isa. 52:14) states: His visage was marred more than any man and his form more than the sons of man. With that said, you are being ridiculous ,just to try and prove your doctrine which will not work with me.I am a man I am
existing in the form of a man, a man!
That the form of God shows
ownership of residence in the incarnation and one does not exclude the
other.
He had no prior relationship to God accept God knew he had
a coming son who would be slain for our redemption and it was ever
before God, he Jesus as son did not exist, then when he did exist, we are told to
allow the same mind that was in CHRIST(A term of time not eternity)
Jesus (*Human mind* mind you, as we do not have a divine but it should
be upon spiritual things)that was also in Christ Jesus who being
(Existing) in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with
God the whole passage is speaking of the incarnation and nothing other
than that you are presumptuous to give us that interpretation.
FW:"he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"
mlculwell; Thus my charge, your view of the passage is polytheistic. God the son would be equal to God the father. Again there is nothing in the passage about persons you insert that to try and get around polytheism. You do believe it is God the son being equal with god the father.
FW:This describes the Son as active prior to creation, in that He, that is the Son, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.
mlculwell: That is not at all what the passage is saying! God the son a pre-incarnate existence is not in the passage.
FW: The text also distinguishes Jesus from God. The term Theos generally in the NT refers to the Father only.
mlculwell: Yeah because partly we are talking about ion this passage about the incarnation and not "pre-existence of persons of God."
The distinguishing is between Spirit and flesh.
FW:"but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. "
mlculwell: That was god the father you said it yourself Theos mainly refers to the father and that ios true and that is who took upon him the form of a servant and and jesu who being or existing in the form of God or God's humnaity thought it nor robbery to be equal with God it would be impossible for one God to think himself eqaul to himself that is ridiculous doctrine.
FW:This provides us with a timeframe of the previous verse; it was prior to the incarnation.
mlculwell: The only existence prior to the incarnation was that of god the father.
FW:Notice that it was Jesus, who is distinct in the verse from the Father, who made Himself nothing.
mlculwell: You are confusing the incarnation the God, in the man which is what the passage is speaking of to view it any other way and especially your view is polythesism
FW:That is, Jesus, the Son of God, made Himself nothing.
mlculwell: No, God(The father) made himself of no reputation in the incarnation(In the flesh of the son who though it not robbery to be equal to God) "Not God being equal to God."
FW:He was submissive before the incarnation and submissive to the Father after, during His work while in flesh.
mlculwell: Why would God need to be submissive to himself do I need to be submissive to myself? I am one self! Jesus real humnaity in the incarnation is that which is submissive to the all powerful spirit of God.
FW: It was the Son who was obedient to the Father, it was the Son who gave His life.
mlculwell: Yes it was the son but son does not equate "god the son" you inserted that false doctrine upon scripture. So is that which was born of Mary and was incarnated by God the father.
FW:Obedience is an impossibility in the modalsitic understanding of God.
mlculwell: Oh it is? So only God can be obedient to God? Do you ever give any thought to anything you say? The man was Obedient not the God as that is the impossibility! Why cannot a man be Obedient to God? More Calvin nonsense!
" already did it is not teaching God was equal to God!"
I never said it was, that was the point.
""Christ" is a term only in relation to the humanity which was incarnated by God the father it means Messiah in the Hebrew"
That is irrelevant. That is not what the text had in mind, nor does that have anything to do with what I said. The point was the distinction between God and Jesus Christ in the text.
"The Jews were waiting for...."
This is another irrelevant statement. I said nothing in relation to that, nor does the text.
"The passage is not speaking about a pre-incarnate "god the son."
The text distinguishes between God and Jesus Christ prior to the incarnation. It also describes Christ as being INDEPENDENTLY active pre-incarnate. Your statement is not only short sighted but terrible subjective. I think that you have allowed the esoteric effects of your tradition to seep into your brain.
"just to try and prove your doctrine which will not work with me"
You have again provided an absolutley illogical response to what I have said. Your points are unrelated to anything that I have provided from the text. You are so blinded by your own angry resolve that you fail to grasp what is clear. I am done trying to hold up the obvious to you, as you are happy in your blindness. In other words, I will no longer cast pearls to a swine. May God grant you mercy, and the forgivness of sins by His grace. . .
Post a Comment