A Closed (Lecture) from a trinitarian on Oneness

I came across this rant from a Reformed trinitarian on what the person who claimed to be ex-Oneness thought Oneness was actually saying by their teachings: ( That being that Oneness were too stupid to know they were trinitarain.)

The person writes:

"I was raised Pentecostal (before I was reformed!) They do believe in the trinity, but for some reason their understanding of it is flawed. They in their ignorance then become anti-trinity. They call themselves "Oneness" instead of "Trinitarian". Since they do not understand the trinity they say that there "is only one God .. not Three". They think that trinitarians are worshiping 3 different Gods. I remember hearing sermon after sermon about the "Oneness of the Godhead" like it was a matter of salvation to believe oneness. But if they understood exegesis they would understand that their "Oneness" God has three personalities.. it is all really just semantics. But you ask any of them.. they are anti-trinity".

My comments:
No, we do not believe in the trinity... (of three persons!)

Yes, we do believe in One God.

"If they understood exegesis"???? You mean by exegesis their version of it, where they find a proof text and isolate the so called proof in a vacuum from all other passages on the same subject or even the continued context????

Very good examples of this thinking is when they do it to John 17:5 and exclude Verse 24 Where the Disciples were about to witness the Glory that the father had with the son before the world was(His passion where the son was slain before the foundation of the world... This was the plan of God for the redemption of mankind.)


Yes, The belief in One God is a matter of salvation... Of course, the trinitarain says: by their tradition and creeds that adherence to the trinity is a matter of salvation. Nowhere do scriptures teach this fallacy.

No, our *One God*(What the term "Oneness" means.) Does not have "three personalities". Our one God took to himself humanity in his son and has the lessor will of a man and the all powerful, ultimate will of God, but not three personalities. One real man, and One real God who incarnated the man, by no measure, do not two, or even three persons of God make!

Matt Slick and the Reformed take the truth of God and change it into a lie

Matt Slick who owns the carm boards, an apologetic arm of those who call themselves the Reformed, attempts to deal with Baptismal regenerationism.(Something those who Baptize in Jesus name are not. But since Slick wrongly attributes this doctrine to us I felt the need to deal with some major issues. You can read here:
http://mypersonalramblingsandopinions.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-water-baptism-save-you.html

Those Who Baptize In Jesus name are not "baptismal regenerationist."

The name Jesus literally spoken over the repentant believer, remits the sin and regenerates the believer.

Belief alone does not save if the belief is dead by not going on to the Grace(God has given ie. through preaching, calling, believing, Repentance, baptism in Jesus name and being filled with the Holy Ghost.) God has given through the new birth.

(Notice) *belief the way the Reformed teach * does not get you the Holy Ghost. Paul asked the question in (Acts 19:2) Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? The Reformed say it is fact, the scriptures say the very opposite by Paul asking the question!

You must believe and call the way the scriptures teach you to call and believe( John 17:20,Romans 10:14-17)

The Apostles were able to remit believer's sins. (John 20:23) The Reformed do not believe this fact and try and hide this passage from you with a bunch of nonsense argumentation that skew truth.

They were not Just willy nilly able to remit sins, but through Baptism in Jesus name alone.(Luke 24:47,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:47,19:1-6)

The Reformed have taken letters to believers in established churches where folks already believed and were Baptized and mistaken belief as a mental nod toward salvation apart from the grace of God through preaching, Baptism in Jesus name where they have taken the truth of God and changed it into a lie.

My Audio debate with LimeyBob of the UK

I hope this works, if Not, I will try another time.
I did this debate because the person in question(Limey Bob) was writing a book
against the Oneness view of God. The debate is Good until the 45 minute mark,
at the beginning of the question and answer session when I then lost my
microphone and never recovered.

Enjoy, tell me what you think and be honest. This Mediafire hosting for free. I tried submitting this with other hosts that did not seem to last very long.

Hopefully the link is good.

Manuel

paste the URl in your address bar at the Bottom to listen.

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ydnuutfcpafbj6

John Calvin Fact ?

Did you Know that John Calvin formulated his doctrines and opinions on scripture texts after believing for One Year? Calvinists actually believe the Man is genius for doing so. No wonder the five points of the Tulip are such a mess......

Roger Perkins(UPC )versus Glen Burt(COC)

http://evidentialfaith.webs.com/apps/links/ Listen.

On baptism in the name versus the titles or "silent baptism".Glen Burt is the same Burt that Marvin Hicks debated In the 70's.

Audio Debate Oneness versus Trinity

Download the audio debate between Myself and Robert Skinner of the UK on the Oneness view versus the Trinity.

http://www.zshare.net/download/774082279718bf1e/

James White continues to spread Lies while crying liar

Here of late Dr.James White has waged a personal vendetta against one Ergun Caner, a professor at Liberty College in Virginia a person to whom White has found out to be one who sensationalizes (Lies) his claim of being a former Muslim of his youth and now a convert to Christianity.... It is my opinion Dr. White wishes to be the main authority on Muslim/Islamic Apologetic's. I offer two quotes.

"Those who have taken the time to listen to my debates, or listen to my lectures, or listen to my interactions with Islamic claims on the Dividing Line (such as the current response I am offering to Sheikh Awal) know that I have consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam." Honest people know I refer to myself as a student of Islam”


“But let's put the shoe on the other foot: where did either Ergun or Emir Caner do graduate study in Islamic theology or Apologetics? Answer? They didn't. They have been granted "expert" status for one simple reason: Ergun's claims that they were raised in Turkey… . The only reason they have been given the status they have has been due to their self-professed upbringing.”

Now what is my point to offering all of this? It seems, White has now made it a personal vendetta to lie himself about a Reformed Preacher by the name of Harold Camping to whom White debated on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio broadcast. You can listen here for yourself and see that White blatantly lies.
http://mp3.sharpens.org/20090728ISI.mp3 by saying he was a Oneness/"Modalist" for not teaching three persons of God in the way in which White does.(After White blatantly pointed out the lies of Ergun Caners claims he goes headlong and does the same exact thing.)

Camping has set a date for the second coming of Christ and the end of the world and is a Calvinist Reformed Teacher who claims all should leave their places of worship as they are all evil.(Wait now how can Camping teach Calvinism and be deceived?) I would like to point out no Oneness(Modalist) as White calls us would claim God is three persons as can be clearly heard on The Camping
vs.White debate.....

Dr.Whites Quote

I wanted to submit a quote by Dr. James White of (Aomin.org) that I have been submitting on the carm boards of late, that in my opinion, does more harm than good for the trinitarain position whom in trying prove the doctrine is not polytheism, has the exact opposite effect.

Pay very close attention to where Dr. White says; that: "the God and the word are not interchangeable terms"? He makes the statement in defense of his doctrine and states that oneness interchange the term(Which some may do but for the most part, is not true.) However, the trinitarain's do interchange the term as the word is *god the son,* with one caveat he is not *the God* (folks there is only the God)think about that?

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

"This phrase, if taken completely alone, would be very confusing, since John has already asserted the eternality of the Word. Now he clearly distinguishes between the Word and God. He asserts that they are distinguishable. "God" and "Word" are not interchange-able terms. Then, is John talking about two "gods?" Can more than one being be fully eternal? John was a monotheistic Jew. He could never believe in more than one Being Who can rightly be called "God." How then is this to be understood?

This phrase must be taken with the one that follows. We read, "and the Word was God." Again, the eternal en. John avoids confusion by telling us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus, as we know Him as the Word, does not constitute everything that is included in the Godhead. In other words, John is not teaching the ancient heresy known as Sabellianism, which taught that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are simply three different aspects of one person, i.e., Jesus is the Father, the Father is the Spirit, and so on. Instead, John here asserts the full Deity of Christ, while informing us that He is not the Father, but that they ("God" and the "Word") have eternally co-existed"

The definite article before Logos.

Michael Burgos:
Manuel, it is evident that you have not understood, nor taken the time to examine the Greek. The third clause reads kai Theos en ho Logos. The Logos possesses the article. Therefore, the third clause is a description of the Logos and not an identification of the Logos


Verse 14 is not the identity of the Logos! This is the identity of the son whom John saw and handled. The Logos was not the son!

The word/Logos belongs to God as a possession, Like *the Mules* of John Smith. The definite article shows possession and ownership that is How the word is with God and the word is God (definite article) is not another person which is just plain stupid doctrine!

Michael Burgos:
This clause tells us that the Logos is everything that God is. Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos, you would have to do that with other texts where the article is present with only one of two subjects. For example, 1John says God is love.


You wrote:
"Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos,"

Do you not see your blatant contradiction? You are the one who says the word is god jr! Not me! The word is with God as his creative attribute through his spoken word. That is how the word is both with God and is God. I do not have to convert anything back and forth, that is what you do.
You have defeated your own argument and do not even see how you did so..


Michael Burgos
God has the article and love does not. Therefore using your grammatical assumption you would have to agree that love is God is an equal rendering in that the phrase is convertable. Your lack of knowledge about both the original language and basic Greek grammar is evident. So to is the juvenility of your comments.



God would not be God without his creative Power through his word! But he could be God without Love! Love is something he chose to show forth to us. His power he cannot relinquish, thus his spoken creative power through his word, that is the difference between love and the word, or his word as his creative power. You have no argument!

My Debate on paltalk with LimeyBob

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ydnuutfcpafbj6

This debate took place on Paltalk starting from the carm boards with Limey Bob and moved to a discussion on micro-Phone Feb.14 2010 Limey being from UK and graciously hosting the discussion. Enjoy

Part 1 Baptism of grace through faith and not Torah

Micahel Burgos writes

The United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest of the oneness denominations, contends that baptism in the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation. From their doctrinal statement: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. " (1) David Bernard, the leading UPCI theologian states "Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. " (2) In light of these assertions we must ask ourselves does the word of God agree with Bernard and the UPCI?


Firstly, we must acknowledge that the basis upon which we either agree or disagree whether or not baptism is required must be from the entirety of the scriptures. That is, we cannot isolate passages of scripture from their context to support preconceived doctrines. Nor can we ignore the importance of the epistles at the expense of the narrative passages of scripture. This article is not going to be comprehensive by any means, but it will hit on many of the key texts that deal with the subject of baptism and how or if it relates to salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely we cannot Isolate passages of scripture from there context but this is exactly what the Trinitarain does continually with every doctrine they have devised and the doctrine of Baptisms id no different.

Notice our friend talks about the Epistles and this is the mistake that the Reformed continually make going there for their salvation plan when these are letters to churches who were already Baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost and every-time Paul talks about belief unto salvation or remission he is not speaking of any Reformed doctrine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner. Or as the Apostle puts it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A command is a law of God, but not the Law of God(The Torah) that Paul refutes such works in all of his epistles. That is the great mistake of the Reformed. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace(Given by God himself) If it is of grace, it is not of the law!

There is also the law of love. (A command) Would the Trinitarian say that is a command from the Law? Is it of the law(The Torah?) No, they wrangle to try and maintain their false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)

Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works. This is further emphasized in his discourse on justification in the epistle to the Romans:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is pure dishonesty no person is justified by the law(The law shows us we cannot do what God required under the law. Baptism in Jesus is not of the law it is of grace and love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Burgos
Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”


Certainly no one can argue that the high point or pinnacle of teaching on justification is Paul's discourse in Romans chapters 2-5. Yet, he does not touch on the topic of baptism until chapter 6. We see that Paul has concluded his writing on the topic of justification by the phrase "what shall we say then?"(Rom 6:1). The Apostle proceeds to address abstinence from sin and baptism without connecting the doctrine of baptism and to the salvithic process. Rather, he points to baptism as the symbol that demonstrates the reality of union with Christ in death burial, resurrection, and the newness of life. His words regarding baptism are relevant to the doctrine of sanctification rather than the remission of sins (Rom 6:1-4). The conclusion that we can draw from Romans is that baptism is the symbolic expression of authentic faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isolating one passage from all others as the Reformed do might so teach such nonsesne but we must take all of the word God in the New testament concerning the teaching Jesus himself teaches the apost6les were able to remit and with-hold remission of sins(John 20:23) Whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them. That is not even considered by the Reformed nor do they have a valid explanation of the passage , but rather one more contradiction after another one explanation I have heard is that it was preaching but they hold to the doctrine of God saving us before we were born or ever heard a message preached.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Burgos

The demonstration of an individual's allegiance and recognition of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is best seen in baptism. It is in baptism that Christians may look back as a reminder of their union with Christ. It is in baptism that we are reminded of the hope of resurrection (Rom 6:5).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism In Jesus name is many things and some of the things Michael points out are true but what is absolutely not true is his inference that baptism in Jesus name does not remit(Wash away) sins. Baptism is as much apart of our faith as believing or repentance. Baptism without the name simply gets one wet and does absolutely nothing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos
Typically, we see that there are parallels between the institution of circumcision and baptism (Gen 17:10/Matt 28:19). I would not go as far as to suggest that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant. When we examine the way in which the ritual of circumcision is treated in light of the doctrine of justification there are certain parallels that can and should be drawn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Read Col.2:11-12) The Male Jewish child was circumcised and named on the eighth day after his birth. John The Baptist was. (Luke 1:59) The same is true of the Christian babe. In the new covenant both male, and female, are circumcised(The old man is cut off) and named in a new beginning(The eighth day or first day) Again Baptism without the name does nothing but get one wet and is not of faith, but misplaced because of false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micahel Burgos
Romans 4:9-11 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had no Law of circumcision, he simply followed God of course he would be justified by faith. he stepped out when God told him to he did not say okay God I believe you and stayed put in Ur! That is not faith! Circumcision is not of the new covenant Baptism in Jesus name is God given and is of Grace and is through faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

The Apostles point is this; Abraham's obedience to the ordinance of circumcision was representative of an inward reality; Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing God did was call Abraham to come out of UR, he did not say okay I believe you God and stayed where he was at(That is not faith) but that is exactly the Kind of so called faith the Reformed prop up. (The circumcision is the shadow of the true) not the true. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace through faith. Belief is not mental ascent. An inward reality can be misplaced as such is the Reformed doctrine concerning Baptism in Jesus name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos
The obedience to the ordinance did not effect whether or not Abraham was justified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abraham would not have been Justified if he said:" I believe you God" and stayed in UR, that is not faith but that is the kind of faith the Reformed again prop up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This principal can and should be rightly applied to our own understanding of how we are seen as righteous before God. It is our faith in Christ alone that is counted to us as righteousness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem our understanding and trying to make it mesh and not contradict what Paul says the problem is within their teaching of works by the law and their misunderstanding of all things God has given us by Grace such as Baptism in Jesus name which is grace through faith and not by works of the law. This is a false issue the reformed have propped up for years and have taught their masses but it is so easily contradicted when the Light of Gospel is shed upon the doctrine of their teachings.

It was started because of their fights with the Catholics, who Both the Catholics, and the Reformed teachings were wrong, but some great truths sprung from those debates..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos
Baptism is the sign of that reality, but not the means of that reality.

It seems as though Acts 2:38 is the resounding mantra of Oneness Pentecostalism. When we examine that text in isolation as it is often presented, it does seem to mean exactly what our oneness friends contend it to mean.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (esv, bold mine)

The word "for" used in this verse is the Greek word "eis." This word can mean “because” or “on behalf of.” In light of that definition, it seems as though this text is a detractor of oneness soteriology. In addition, there is another interesting dynamic in the verse. The verb for "be baptized" in the Greek (baptizo) is in the singular, whereas the word for "repent" (metanoeo) is in the plural. The manor in which the text goes from a plural ("repent") to a singular ("be baptized") to plural ("your") suggests that "the forgiveness of sins" is a result of repentance and not baptism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem and now we are in the heart of the matter Michael is using this argument because it suits his doctrine.

What about Math.26:28 This is my blood of the new testament,which is shed for(because of) many for(Because of)the remission of sins(were already remitted?)

What about Romans 3;25? Jesus Christ whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,to declare his righteousness for(Because of) the remission (because of )sins already past?


a man is not justified by Keeping the Law(Torah) but is justified by faith. (What the Reformed does is make anything we do because of the grace of God through faith and the law of Love) Anytime they see *Law or works* it means any thing we do but not what Paul knew as Law (The Torah) (Abraham could not leave Ur then.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are One, coming from heaven.

One Trinitarain by the name of pluralforonegod writes and asks the following question:

"
Who Came Down From Heaven And Became A Man?
1. God the Father
2. Holy Spirit
3. The WORD (Jesus, Son)
4. All of the above

Please try and explain your choice with some comments...

Thanks
__________________

John 17:22...WE (Jesus + Father) are ONE... "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer: Nobody came down from heaven and became a man.


My reasoning that God did not become a man: A dog that becomes a horse, is no longer a dog, but a horse. The Trinitarain or Oneness that makes this claim is using thoughtless imagery. God remained God but indwelt the man who remained a real human being, but it was not at all like a Christian who simply receives the spirit. The son of God was given the spirit by no measure and if it was given him by no measure then it is immeasurably his and to take away in any amount is measuring.

Jesus makes the statement *I came down from heaven*(They say is "God the son") not to do my own will, but the will of him(God the father) that sent me.(John 6:38)



So First off. It was not God's will, but it was God's will. Why would the same one God sent down from heaven have an opposing will within his one God-self? That does not sound like monotheism. And if he were the all, ever- present God, would he not already be there?

The Oneness view is that it is his own real human will submitting as a lessor being to the will of the ultimate being of God in the incarnation.


We see sent and coming language used of Jesus in (John 6:51) In the very same passage and context and explains what Jesus meant.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man shall eat of this bread,he shall live forever, and the bread I will give (which came down from heaven) is my flesh.

We see clearly from John 6:51 and again in verse 62 his coming and being sent was in reference to his flesh being provided as an atonement for our sins and it has nothing to do with "god the son" coming literally as another person from heaven. flesh.


The Word/Logos was not "god the son" in eternity either. A person would be hard pressed to find the term son in that passage and he was not the son until he was born of the virgin(Gal.4:4,Math1:20)

By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint Greek of the OT.) The Logos was God's spoken, creative, expression and not another person of God.

Tyndale in his translation did not call the word a *he* as another person but rather an *it* likely saw the forcefulness of the psalm passage and applied accordingly.


What did Jesus mean in John 17;22 when he said: "we are one"? *We* does not refer to polytheistic persons in the Godhead but rather a real man incarnated by the real God. The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works(John 14:10)

I can of mine own real human self do no works(John 5:30)

Only begotten (sired and born) son, or only begotten eternal son

The Trinitarian's claim from a variant reading of John 1:18 that Jesus was the only begotten God(Eternal son) as opposed to the other two un-begotten gods/Gods the term they say in the variant reading is Monogenes theos(Grk) or only begotten god/God.

This variant reading either teaches Polytheism(Belief in more than one God) because of the term God or it could be viewed in light of the incarnation. The term *person* that is frequently imposed upon scripture for the purpose of stopping queries of Polytheism is not found in the text the same could be said of Philippians 2:6....

The Oneness view is that Jesus was the Only begotten (Miraculously sired and born son of the
father and the virgin) and not eternally begotten in the sense that he pre-existed as another person(A term not even found in the text) but he would be eternally sustained in the sense that he was a a real man given the spirit by no measure as his flesh had a beginning.
The Trinitarian doctrine would make Jesus inferior as he is sustained by another.

Jesus, Just Like Issac was the Only begotten son of the promise even though Abraham had
two sons, one sired/begotten of the promise and the other of the flesh, not of
the promise.

One Trinitarian known as Limey Bob on the CARM boards writes the following concerning his view of the variant.

"In Greek begotten is 'gennao' (verb) and 'only begotten' (adjective) is monogenese. These are two different Greek terms which you are confusing, for you cannot take monogenese and then say that it means begotten as it does not; it means 'only begotten' or 'one and only' or 'one of a kind' and being an adjective implies a relationship and not an act of creation (which only a verb would imply). So when applied to God 'monogense' implies an eternal state just as at John 1:18 (becasue God is eternal), or else it implies a non-eternal state as at Hebrews 11:17 where Isaac is monogenese of Abraham."

Yes monogenes(pronounsed mono- ga- nase) means *only begotten.* Issac was the only sired and born son of the promise Just Like Jesus was the only miraculously sired and born son of god and the virgin birth.

Nothing is said from this writer about the literal virgin birth the writer is trying his hardest to hide in plain site as it does have to do with jesus literal flesh being the only begotten and he inserts his doctrine and actually disproves it or he has two beggetals.