OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 08:01:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Modalists?  (Read 7666 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: February 11, 2010, 07:11:49 PM »

Just wondering, how do EOs view modalists such as the members of the United Pentecostal Church. Are they seen as Christians or not? I have trouble seeing them as Christians but not sure about my thinking on this matter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,725


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2010, 09:00:18 PM »

They deny the Holy Trinity, so their beliefs have traditionally been called heretical.  This heresy was dealt with, I think, in the third century and it was condemned.

You can click on the Sabellianism tag for more threads on this.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2010, 12:42:00 AM »

They deny the Holy Trinity, so their beliefs have traditionally been called heretical.  This heresy was dealt with, I think, in the third century and it was condemned.

You can click on the Sabellianism tag for more threads on this.
Thanks. I definitely know that it is heresy. That being said, many EOs consider certain heretics to still be Christians such as protestants. Would they consider Modalists to be Christians?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2010, 01:39:27 PM »

Well, obviously I can't speak to the EO position or views, but ... their Christology itself is orthodox, so they have sufficient truth to truly believe on the Lord Jesus, and hence I believe they are Christians, other errors in belief aside.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2010, 02:23:39 PM »

Well, obviously I can't speak to the EO position or views, but ... their Christology itself is orthodox, so they have sufficient truth to truly believe on the Lord Jesus, and hence I believe they are Christians, other errors in belief aside.
You're saying modalists have an orthodox Christology? Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2010, 03:42:45 PM »

Well, obviously I can't speak to the EO position or views, but ... their Christology itself is orthodox, so they have sufficient truth to truly believe on the Lord Jesus, and hence I believe they are Christians, other errors in belief aside.
You're saying modalists have an orthodox Christology? Shocked
Yeah, I'd be interested to hear what exactly qualifies as "orthodox christology" here. I'm pretty sure it must be pretty inclusive.

I also find it somewhat bizarre, and genuinely interesting, that "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ" appears to be said to be more important than proper trinitarian belief or anything else. Like if you believe some certain stuff about Christ you get a pass on your heretical beliefs on the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2010, 03:46:09 PM »

Well, obviously I can't speak to the EO position or views, but ... their Christology itself is orthodox, so they have sufficient truth to truly believe on the Lord Jesus, and hence I believe they are Christians, other errors in belief aside.
Is their Christology orthodox? I would say absolutely not because they do not believe that the Logos is the Eternal Son of the Father. In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians. This is why I am wonder if they can be called Christians at all. I just am not sure. The reason I bring this up is that I visited a modalist Church this week for the sake of a friend. There were many things that left me uneasy, including their denial of the Trinity.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 03:48:37 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,878



« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2010, 04:14:57 PM »

Having read the Wikipedia articles on both "modalism" and the "United Pentecostal Church," I think that they are a cult. If the Wiki articles are correct, these folks are in the same category as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in having rejected EO (as well as RC and Protestant) trinitarianism and Christology.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2010, 04:49:20 PM »

Having read the Wikipedia articles on both "modalism" and the "United Pentecostal Church," I think that they are a cult. If the Wiki articles are correct, these folks are in the same category as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in having rejected EO (as well as RC and Protestant) trinitarianism and Christology.
I was thinking along the same lines. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2010, 04:56:26 PM »


Yeah, I'd be interested to hear what exactly qualifies as "orthodox christology" here. I'm pretty sure it must be pretty inclusive.

I also find it somewhat bizarre, and genuinely interesting, that "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ" appears to be said to be more important than proper trinitarian belief or anything else. Like if you believe some certain stuff about Christ you get a pass on your heretical beliefs on the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Though I wouldn't frame it that way, that's sorta what I mean. You get a "pass" far enough to actually place saving faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, receive the forgiveness of sins, and start the journey of the new Christian life. The heterodox notions may eventually cause some grave error that causes one to lose out or cease following Christ to the best of their knowledge and ability. But, it need not keep a person from coming to true faith in Jesus Christ as God incarnate and Lord & Savior.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 04:57:46 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2010, 04:58:01 PM »


Yeah, I'd be interested to hear what exactly qualifies as "orthodox christology" here. I'm pretty sure it must be pretty inclusive.

I also find it somewhat bizarre, and genuinely interesting, that "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ" appears to be said to be more important than proper trinitarian belief or anything else. Like if you believe some certain stuff about Christ you get a pass on your heretical beliefs on the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Though I wouldn't frame it that way, that's sorta what I mean. You get a "pass" far enough to actually place saving faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, receive the forgiveness of sins, and start the journey of the new Christian life. The heterodox notions may eventuallty cause some grave error that causes one to loss out or apostatize, theoretically. But it need not keep a person from coming to true faith in Jesus Christ as God incarnate and Lord & Savior.
It seems to me that it they don't believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, then they profess a different Jesus than the one that you and I worship.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2010, 05:08:01 PM »

Well, obviously I can't speak to the EO position or views, but ... their Christology itself is orthodox, so they have sufficient truth to truly believe on the Lord Jesus, and hence I believe they are Christians, other errors in belief aside.
Is their Christology orthodox? I would say absolutely not because they do not believe that the Logos is the Eternal Son of the Father. In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians. This is why I am wonder if they can be called Christians at all. I just am not sure. The reason I bring this up is that I visited a modalist Church this week for the sake of a friend. There were many things that left me uneasy, including their denial of the Trinity.

I have and/or have had several "oneness" friends, who are no doubt devoted followers of Christ. In fcat, despite their insistance that the do not believe in the Trinity, I thin often they are beating around the bush and just are not fully aware of it.

When I say their Christology is orthodox, I mean their Christology itself apart form any connection that has with other aspects of theology. namely, they believe Christ is God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit, really, fully a man, and really, fully God at the same time and in His one person. They believe as a man He lived a sinless life, performed the miracles Scripture attests, and died a vicarious death on the cross for the redemption of sinful man, was buried, and bodily rose again the third day, according to the Scripture, ascended into heaven, and await his bodily return. They believe His sacrificial death and resurrection to be the only means of forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and hope of eternal life.

That's the kind of stuff I have in mind when I say their Christology itself is orthodox.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2010, 08:58:07 PM »

If you don't believe in the trinity (ie you either disagree with the 325 A.D. council of Nicea OR the 410 A.D. Council of Mar Yitzhak in Babylon of the COE which re-affirmed the Trinitarian doctrine in Eastern Christian semitic terminology) then you are not a Christian. Period. End of matter. You cannot disagree with every single Bishop of the ancient Apostolic Church, including those outside the Rome-Byzantium sphere, and still call yourself a Christian. Now...there are definitely some problems in the Greek terminology used for the trinity doctrine and the COE actually formulated this creed in Semitic wording.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,725


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2010, 11:02:50 PM »

I have and/or have had several "oneness" friends, who are no doubt devoted followers of Christ. In fcat, despite their insistance that the do not believe in the Trinity, I thin often they are beating around the bush and just are not fully aware of it.

When I say their Christology is orthodox, I mean their Christology itself apart form any connection that has with other aspects of theology. namely, they believe Christ is God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit, really, fully a man, and really, fully God at the same time and in His one person. They believe as a man He lived a sinless life, performed the miracles Scripture attests, and died a vicarious death on the cross for the redemption of sinful man, was buried, and bodily rose again the third day, according to the Scripture, ascended into heaven, and await his bodily return. They believe His sacrificial death and resurrection to be the only means of forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and hope of eternal life.

That's the kind of stuff I have in mind when I say their Christology itself is orthodox.

I think I understand what you are saying, but don't they essentially believe that Christ is God the Father in the flesh?  I've only personally known one modalist.  He was a guy at my church who unfortunately started attending a Oneness Pentecostal Bible Study and began to believe as they did.  It was quite horrible.  Among other things, he seemed to believe that the Father was the God of the Old Testament and when He took on flesh, he became Christ.  At least that was how I understood it.

That's just way too "out there" for me to be able to say that they worship the same Christ as we do.  I have no doubt they are devoted to Christ, just as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are, but I would not say they worship the same Christ.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2010, 01:17:51 AM »

When I say their Christology is orthodox, I mean their Christology itself apart form any connection that has with other aspects of theology.

Every aspect of Orthodox theology that I know of is connected to and based in Christology. Trinitarian theology is connected to Christology because it expresses "Who" became man. If someone changes "Who" God is, then they change "Who" became man, was crucified, rose again, ascended, and will come again. If someone changes "Who" Jesus Christ is, then they "preach another Jesus". This is St Paul's definition of "another gospel".

2 Cor. 11:2-3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2010, 01:24:49 AM »

When I say their Christology is orthodox, I mean their Christology itself apart form any connection that has with other aspects of theology.

Every aspect of Orthodox theology that I know of is connected to and based in Christology. Trinitarian theology is connected to Christology because it expresses "Who" became man. If someone changes "Who" God is, then they change "Who" became man, was crucified, rose again, ascended, and will come again. If someone changes "Who" Jesus Christ is, then they "preach another Jesus". This is St Paul's definition of "another gospel".

2 Cor. 11:2-3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Amen! Amen! Amen!
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2010, 05:11:53 AM »

When I say their Christology is orthodox, I mean their Christology itself apart form any connection that has with other aspects of theology.

Every aspect of Orthodox theology that I know of is connected to and based in Christology. Trinitarian theology is connected to Christology because it expresses "Who" became man. If someone changes "Who" God is, then they change "Who" became man, was crucified, rose again, ascended, and will come again. If someone changes "Who" Jesus Christ is, then they "preach another Jesus". This is St Paul's definition of "another gospel".

2 Cor. 11:2-3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I understand. Logically, that statement holds. However, practically it's just not always so clear cut. You might have to spend some time befriending and observing Oneness Pentecostal Believers to see the validity of their discipleship and understand better what I am trying to say.

Sure they have some wrong headed notions about the nature of God's existence and personage. BUT, they're not denying the God of the Bible, the gospel, nor the plan of Salvation (unlike the Mormon and JW's) -- they just misunderstand Him. Besides, they do not deny the Son (or the Father for that matter, though they do confuse them). So, per the Beloved Apostle, they get the Father by default.

1 John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2010, 09:56:01 PM »

When I say their Christology is orthodox, I mean their Christology itself apart form any connection that has with other aspects of theology.

Every aspect of Orthodox theology that I know of is connected to and based in Christology. Trinitarian theology is connected to Christology because it expresses "Who" became man. If someone changes "Who" God is, then they change "Who" became man, was crucified, rose again, ascended, and will come again. If someone changes "Who" Jesus Christ is, then they "preach another Jesus". This is St Paul's definition of "another gospel".

2 Cor. 11:2-3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I understand. Logically, that statement holds. However, practically it's just not always so clear cut. You might have to spend some time befriending and observing Oneness Pentecostal Believers to see the validity of their discipleship and understand better what I am trying to say.

Sure they have some wrong headed notions about the nature of God's existence and personage. BUT, they're not denying the God of the Bible, the gospel, nor the plan of Salvation (unlike the Mormon and JW's) -- they just misunderstand Him. Besides, they do not deny the Son (or the Father for that matter, though they do confuse them). So, per the Beloved Apostle, they get the Father by default.

1 John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Any good Mormon will tell you that they worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and will also tell you that we are saved by the blood of Christ, who is God, crucified and risen and that there is no other way. They claim to worship the same God as us, with a different understanding of that God. They also put their faith and trust in Christ crucified and risen.

As for the JWs, they also believe Jesus to be Jehovah, and put their faith in His death and resurrection, just with a different understanding.

Both of these groups devote themselves to discipleship. They dress modestly and have good manners. The Mormon church even has a night devoted to the family (I personally think this would be a good practice for anyone) and have one of the best church-based welfare systems in the world. Even Hindus try to be disciples of Christ by following His teachings about love.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,505



« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2010, 10:07:09 PM »

Any good Mormon will tell you that they worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and will also tell you that we are saved by the blood of Christ, who is God, crucified and risen and that there is no other way. They claim to worship the same God as us, with a different understanding of that God. They also put their faith and trust in Christ crucified and risen.
Then maybe the two Mormon missionaries I talked with a couple of weeks ago weren't "good Mormons". We got into a very fruitful discussion of the Trinity. I explained that we understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be three persons who are united in their divinity as one God. One the young men said (and yes these are his exact words), "We believe that they are three gods." That is not a claim to worshipping the same God as us. I'd love to hear what his partner said to him about that statement after they left Smiley. And yet, it was clear that they used exactly the same terminology about a "relationship with Jesus" that Evangelical Protestants use.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2010, 10:25:39 PM »

For the Mormons, the Trinity is "three Gods  united in one purpose." Jesus is our brother - literally. There is no adoptionism here, in fact, everybody is the spirit son or daughter of the Heavenly Father (LDS terminology)... by nature. It's a fascinating belief system.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2010, 10:30:02 PM »

Any good Mormon will tell you that they worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and will also tell you that we are saved by the blood of Christ, who is God, crucified and risen and that there is no other way. They claim to worship the same God as us, with a different understanding of that God. They also put their faith and trust in Christ crucified and risen.
Then maybe the two Mormon missionaries I talked with a couple of weeks ago weren't "good Mormons". We got into a very fruitful discussion of the Trinity. I explained that we understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be three persons who are united in their divinity as one God. One the young men said (and yes these are his exact words), "We believe that they are three gods." That is not a claim to worshipping the same God as us. I'd love to hear what his partner said to him about that statement after they left Smiley. And yet, it was clear that they used exactly the same terminology about a "relationship with Jesus" that Evangelical Protestants use.

They do believe in three different gods, but they use similar terminology. I'm sure if you didn't get into details and simply said "Do you worship the same God as us?" without going any further than that, they would probably say "yes". My point wasn't to classify Mormons as being Christian, but to show that they consider themselves true Christians and use language that most Protestants would consider to be "the essentials" of Christianity.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2010, 01:52:11 AM »

They (Mormons) may use acceptable terminology, but "the devil is in the details", as they say. It's what they don't say (like when typically visiting a strange home) that skews their Christology and consequently their 'gospel'. They believe Christ and Satan to be brothers, equals as it were; that Christ is not eternal, having a beginning; that to them God is a status, god-hood, and that any person can eventually be elevated to it; and that their theology embraces polytheism. That's right they are not simply tritheists, they are polytheists.

Whereas, Oneness believers embrace monotheism, and believe Christ to be both eternal and truly divine. They eschew trinitarianism because to them it reeks of tritheism, and serves to corrupt pure monotheism (in their perspective). They believe "modalism" (more or less) to be a better explanation for the distinctions in the Godhead and/or the manifest "persons" of God. Error? Yes. But not near the level of error of Mormonism, and not erroneous enough to change the basics underlying who Christ really was and is.

As for JW's, whatever terminology they employ, they deny Christ's bodily resurrection, they deny His essential divinity (claiming He is created), and they deny that He is in fact God in the flesh. Plus, according to Paul, they are "yet in their sins", having denied the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Oneness believers do not do so. They accept both the full humanity and the full divinity of Christ, and affirm His bodily resurrection and ascension. Oneness believe Jesus really is who He says He is, they just reinterpret His relationship to the Father because of and/or to align with their overemphasis (if you will) on monotheism.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 01:56:24 AM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,505



« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2010, 05:05:22 PM »

Whereas, Oneness believers embrace monotheism, and believe Christ to be both eternal and truly divine. They eschew trinitarianism because to them it reeks of tritheism, and serves to corrupt pure monotheism (in their perspective). They believe "modalism" (more or less) to be a better explanation for the distinctions in the Godhead and/or the manifest "persons" of God. Error? Yes. But not near the level of error of Mormonism, and not erroneous enough to change the basics underlying who Christ really was and is (emphasis added).
It is my understanding that God's love for us, indeed our very existence, is the extension of the relationship of perfect love expressed by the Three Persons of the Trinity for each other. A "one-person god" can neither express nor be love, unless you try to argue that that's why he created us, which then means that he is incomplete in himself. A denial of the Trinity is a denial of Christ. If Christ is not in a perfect relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as persons, then "the basics" have indeed been changed.
Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2010, 05:25:54 PM »

A "one-person god" can neither express nor be love, unless you try to argue that that's why he created us, which then means that he is incomplete in himself.

Really? See, I don;t get that at all. I can see how one might understand love in relationship among the Godhead, yes. But to insist that God, as one person, could not love nor be love is a stretch to me. Of course, I realize we are arguing from the absurd, so to speak, still ... God,m by definition, is God and is (and I believe would be) self sufficient in and of himself -- whether one person, two, or three. I am created in His image and even I have the capacity to love as an act of will without any need to do so or for it to be reciprocated. Granted, mine is limited when compared with the Almighty's (which perfect love thankfully He has shed abroad in my heart and allows me to partake of).

Besides, for millennia, before a clear revelation of His tri-unity, God essentially revealed himself as one person to the world, and He loved and was love then.

Quote
A denial of the Trinity is a denial of Christ. If Christ is not in a perfect relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as persons, then "the basics" have indeed been changed.

I'm not sure about that. I see where it could be, depending on the nature of the "denial", but in this case their so called "denial" is really only a misinterpretation or recasting of God's tri-unity. They do not actually deny Father, Son, or Spirit they just have difficulty understanding their true relation one to another, and tend to see it as one in three instead of three in one. They are nor far from the truth, and they have(IMO) enough truth about the person and work of Christ to truly believe on Him for the forgiveness of sins and a life of conformity to His image and and will.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,505



« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2010, 11:44:27 AM »

A "one-person god" can neither express nor be love, unless you try to argue that that's why he created us, which then means that he is incomplete in himself.

Really? See, I don;t get that at all. I can see how one might understand love in relationship among the Godhead, yes. But to insist that God, as one person, could not love nor be love is a stretch to me. Of course, I realize we are arguing from the absurd, so to speak, still ... God,m by definition, is God and is (and I believe would be) self sufficient in and of himself -- whether one person, two, or three. I am created in His image and even I have the capacity to love as an act of will without any need to do so or for it to be reciprocated. Granted, mine is limited when compared with the Almighty's (which perfect love thankfully He has shed abroad in my heart and allows me to partake of).

Besides, for millennia, before a clear revelation of His tri-unity, God essentially revealed himself as one person to the world, and He loved and was love then.

Quote
A denial of the Trinity is a denial of Christ. If Christ is not in a perfect relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as persons, then "the basics" have indeed been changed.

I'm not sure about that. I see where it could be, depending on the nature of the "denial", but in this case their so called "denial" is really only a misinterpretation or recasting of God's tri-unity. They do not actually deny Father, Son, or Spirit they just have difficulty understanding their true relation one to another, and tend to see it as one in three instead of three in one. They are nor far from the truth, and they have(IMO) enough truth about the person and work of Christ to truly believe on Him for the forgiveness of sins and a life of conformity to His image and and will.
Because, dear friend, love can be expressed only in a relationship. Even back in my Protestant days, I was taught that "love is a verb". Love is not something that God created and kept on a shelf until it was needed. If love truly is part of God's being, then it has been present and expressed for eternity. That leads us then to the existence of an eternal relationship.

I agree with you that God did not clearly reveal His Trinitarian nature (note to others: is that phrase Orthodoxly Smiley correct?) in the OT. But that does not mean He became a Trinity at the Incarnation or at any other moment that can be named. We can look back into the OT now and see where there are glimpses of the Trinity. I'm sure you can list those as easily as I.

Take a look at Mark 12:28-34 and Acts 26:25-29 and see how both Jesus and the Apostle Paul dealt with someone "not far from the truth".
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2010, 01:22:12 PM »

I recall from my readings about the 'Oneness' Pentecostals (etc) getting the impression that their modalist view of God led to a quasi-(if not outright) Nestorian view of Christ.  This seems evident when one considers how they would handle the fact of Jesus praying to the Father--if this is not to be taken as a person talking to himself (since in the modalist framework, the Son and Father are not distinct persons), then the implication is that the MAN Jesus was talking to GOD, thus driving too sharp a wedge between the two natures with the result of having a human person talking to a divine person.  In fact, IIRC, that was more or less the explanation I remember reading on one of their websites several years ago.   The same sort of problem would be apparent in John 14-17 when a plain reading of the text reveals personal distinctions between the Father, Christ and 'the Comforter'--ie Christ sending the Comforter from the Father would be reduced to Christ sending himself from himself in the modalistic framework.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2010, 01:50:27 PM »

I recall from my readings about the 'Oneness' Pentecostals (etc) getting the impression that their modalist view of God led to a quasi-(if not outright) Nestorian view of Christ.  This seems evident when one considers how they would handle the fact of Jesus praying to the Father--if this is not to be taken as a person talking to himself (since in the modalist framework, the Son and Father are not distinct persons), then the implication is that the MAN Jesus was talking to GOD, thus driving too sharp a wedge between the two natures with the result of having a human person talking to a divine person.  In fact, IIRC, that was more or less the explanation I remember reading on one of their websites several years ago.   The same sort of problem would be apparent in John 14-17 when a plain reading of the text reveals personal distinctions between the Father, Christ and 'the Comforter'--ie Christ sending the Comforter from the Father would be reduced to Christ sending himself from himself in the modalistic framework.
Very much agreed.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2010, 02:47:16 PM »

Oh, I agree -- there explanations definitely get hairy! That's because they have an error in their premise that flaws their theology (as you know). There view on the Godhead is, however understandably so, wrong.

Nevertheless, they have the essentials concerning the nature of Christ (and it's application) in relation to his incarnation and soteriology basically right, and so they are or can be (IMO) genuine disciples of Jesus. In short, they really do believe in the Jesus of the Bible (though they have some wrong headed notions about the Godhead), unlike JWs and Mormons, who want you to believe their Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible, when he clearly is not.

Anyhow, I've somewhat derailed the thread long enough. You didn't explicitly solicit my opinion, but that of Orthodox adherents. So...  angel
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 03:04:03 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2010, 02:55:21 PM »

Oh, I agree -- there explanations definitely get hairy! That's because they have an error in their premise that flaws their theology (and you know). There view on the Godhead is, however understandably so, wrong.

Nevertheless, they have the essentials concerning the nature of Christ (and it's application) in relation to his incarnation and soteriology basically right, and so they are or can be (IMO) genuine disciples of Jesus. In short, they really do believe in the Jesus of the Bible (though they have some wrong headed notions about the Godhead), unlike JWs and Mormons, who want you to believe their Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible, when he clearly is not.

Anyhow, I've somewhat derailed the thread long enough. You didn't explicitly solicit my opinion, but that of Orthodox adherents. So...  angel
You argree with their soteriology? You know that they do not subscribe to Sola Fide nor to "Once saved always saved", right?
BTW, Even though you are not Orthodox I am interested in your input on this matter. I still see you as a Christian and brother in Christ.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,878



« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2010, 02:58:59 PM »

Oh, I agree -- there explanations definitely get hairy! That's because they have an error in their premise that flaws their theology (and you know). There view on the Godhead is, however understandably so, wrong.

Nevertheless, they have the essentials concerning the nature of Christ (and it's application) in relation to his incarnation and soteriology basically right, and so they are or can be (IMO) genuine disciples of Jesus. In short, they really do believe in the Jesus of the Bible (though they have some wrong headed notions about the Godhead), unlike JWs and Mormons, who want you to believe their Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible, when he clearly is not.

Anyhow, I've somewhat derailed the thread long enough. You didn't explicitly solicit my opinion, but that of Orthodox adherents. So...  angel

I for one appreciated your contribution, particularly the distinctions between the Mormons, JW, and the "Oneness" Pentacostals. Thank you.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2010, 03:14:35 PM »

I for one appreciated your contribution, particularly the distinctions between the Mormons, JW, and the "Oneness" Pentacostals. Thank you.

Your most welcome.  Grin
And thank you for the kind remarks.  Smiley
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2010, 03:29:44 PM »

You argree with their soteriology? You know that they do not subscribe to Sola Fide nor to "Once saved always saved", right?

Not exactly. Besides, that wasn't what I was saying. What I meant was that their understanding of the nature of Christ was correct enough to allow for basically a right understanding of His incarnation and any application His nature, person, or work should have on their soteriology. For instance, because they believe Jesus is fully man, fully God, and was bodily raised from the dead they consequently believe he lived a sinless life, is a worthy vicarious substitute, and the only means of atonement or reconciliation with the Father.

If they got stuff like that wrong, the basics, then any professed belief in Christ or claim to salvation would be manifestly false. You see what I mean? I hope that more clearly explains what I was trying to say at least.

As for their soteriology itself -- I don't completely agree with them, no. However, I would argue they do believe in Sola Fide, the same as I do, just not with the same extreme emphasize that Luther and Calvin did, or at least that that some of their followers do (permitting antinomian errors to eventually be embraced).

As for OSAS, well I don't believe that either.

I'm sure that I actually have more in common with Oneness Pentecostal soteriology (and related themes) than I do Calvinism's. After all I am more or less a modified pentecostal myself, having been raised and brought to faith in the holiness/pentecostal "Church of God" movement.

What may be of interest to you, and something with which I do not agree, is that they believe in baptismal regeneration. Just a tidbit there for ya.  Wink


Quote
BTW, Even though you are not Orthodox I am interested in your input on this matter. I still see you as a Christian and brother in Christ.

Thank you, both for the audience and the estimation.  Wink Grin
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 03:32:16 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2010, 03:39:07 PM »


What may be of interest to you, and something with which I do not agree, is that they believe in baptismal regeneration. Just a tidbit there for ya.  Wink

I did know that but I think its not exactly the same as the Catholic/Orthodox view of Baptismal regeneration.

Also, I know that they consider themselves to be "Apostolic" which is quite interesting.

One more thing, I was looking at one of their books and celebrates Sebellius the heretic as a hero.  Shocked
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2010, 12:37:03 AM »

I don't care about what the pentecostals think, but there is no such thing as a "Nestorian". There is the Church of the East who had several of Jesus's distant relatives serving as patriarchs (ie: Mar Abris related to the virgin, and Mar Abraham related to Saint Joseph) and which holds to the most conservative orthodox views I know of in Christendom, and does not accept robber synods as ecumenical. The church with the Christology the Apostles would speak of (its all in Aramaic/Eastern Syriac).
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2010, 06:57:21 PM »


In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians.

Well, on the basis of defects in the doctrine of the Trinity, I would probably say the same about everyone else except for the EOC, OOC, and ACE.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2010, 07:08:20 PM »


Yeah, I'd be interested to hear what exactly qualifies as "orthodox christology" here. I'm pretty sure it must be pretty inclusive.

I also find it somewhat bizarre, and genuinely interesting, that "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ" appears to be said to be more important than proper trinitarian belief or anything else. Like if you believe some certain stuff about Christ you get a pass on your heretical beliefs on the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Though I wouldn't frame it that way, that's sorta what I mean. You get a "pass" far enough to actually place saving faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, receive the forgiveness of sins, and start the journey of the new Christian life. The heterodox notions may eventually cause some grave error that causes one to lose out or cease following Christ to the best of their knowledge and ability. But, it need not keep a person from coming to true faith in Jesus Christ as God incarnate and Lord & Savior.

If Christ is the Logos, then how does the difference of believing that the Logos is a distinct individual from the Father (Trinitarianism) on one hand and believing that the Logos is not a distinct individual from the Father (Modalism) not, as a result, necessitate a distinct Christology? One group believes that Christ is a distinct hypostasis from the Father and the other believes that Christ is the same hypostasis as the Father.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2010, 07:10:40 PM »


If you don't believe in the trinity (ie you either disagree with the 325 A.D. council of Nicea OR the 410 A.D. Council of Mar Yitzhak in Babylon of the COE which re-affirmed the Trinitarian doctrine in Eastern Christian semitic terminology) then you are not a Christian. Period. End of matter. You cannot disagree with every single Bishop of the ancient Apostolic Church, including those outside the Rome-Byzantium sphere, and still call yourself a Christian. Now...there are definitely some problems in the Greek terminology used for the trinity doctrine and the COE actually formulated this creed in Semitic wording.

To clarify, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't really completely defined until after Constantinople I in 381.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2010, 07:15:25 PM »


I don't care about what the pentecostals think, but there is no such thing as a "Nestorian". There is the Church of the East who had several of Jesus's distant relatives serving as patriarchs (ie: Mar Abris related to the virgin, and Mar Abraham related to Saint Joseph) and which holds to the most conservative orthodox views I know of in Christendom, and does not accept robber synods as ecumenical. The church with the Christology the Apostles would speak of (its all in Aramaic/Eastern Syriac).

The folks at nestorian.org would seem to think that Nestorius was misunderstood and that he was actually simply a follower of Theodore of Mopsuestia and that both of them were actually orthodox. As such, they do not have a problem considering themselves Nestorians. What do you think of that?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 07:15:49 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 566



« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2010, 12:46:33 AM »

Quote
Really? See, I don;t get that at all. I can see how one might understand love in relationship among the Godhead, yes. But to insist that God, as one person, could not love nor be love is a stretch to me.

Its not that hard to get...OK it can be initially, then it isn't.  Consider this, there is no such thing as love, faith, longing, etc. in the abstract apart from one who loves, has faith, longs etc.  These things demand a person else they do not exist.

Now consider this, the Scripture teaches us not that God has love, but that He is love.  Now consider how St. Paul described love...vaunteth not itself, seeketh not its own, etc.  To speak with more precision based on this we can say love, by its nature is kenotic...self-emptying.  Or let's put it another way, there is no love without the beloved. And this thought leads us step by step into the heart of Orthodox Trinitarian theology that understands nothing, not even God exists apart from communion.  Because God the Father is the font of Being and Because He is the Father, and the Father is Love, and Love is kenotic, and does not exist apart from the Beloved...nor from the Beloved Other, we cannot speak of love sensibly apart from a communion of persons...of those who love and are loved.

Here is a passage from the introduction to Communion as Being by John D. Zizoulas, which was written by Fr. John Meyendorff:

Quote
"But this communion is not a relationship understood for its own sake, an existential structure which supplants "nature" or "substance" in its primordial ontological role.... Just like "substance", "communion" does not exist by itself: it is the Father who isthe "cause of it.  This thesis of the Cappadocians that introduced the concept of "cause" into the being of God assumed an incalculable importance. For it meant that the ultimate ontological category which makes something really be, is neither an impersonal and incommunicable "substance," nor a structure of communion existing by itself or imposed by necessity, but rather the person. The fact that God owes his existence to the Father, that is to a person means (a) that His "substance," His being, does not constrain Him (God does not exist because He cannot but exist), and (b) that communion is not a constraining structure for His existence (God is not in communion, does not love, because He cannot but be in communion and love). The fact that God exists because of the Father shows that His existence, His being is the consequence of a free person; which means, in the last analysis, that not only communion, but also freedom, the free person constitutes true being. True being comes only from the free person, from the person who loves freely--that is, who freely affirms his being, his identity, by means of an even t of communion with other persons.

In this way the discussion of the being of God leads patristic thought to the following theses, which are fundamentally bound up with ecclesiology as well as ontology:

(a) There is no true being without communion. Nothing exists as an "individual" conceivable in itself. Communion is an ontological category.
(b)Communion which does not come from a "hypostasis" , that is, a concrete and free person, and which does not lead to "hypostases" that is  concrete and free persons, is not an "image of the being of God. The person cannot exist without communion; but every form of communion which denies or suppresses the person is inadmissible."

Now let's look at the text itself and see what, his grace, Bishop John has to say:
Quote
It thus becomes evident that the only exercise of freedom in an ontological manner is love. the expression "God is love" (1 John 4: 16) signifies that God "subsists" as Trinity, that is as person and not as substance. Love is not an emanation or "property" of the substance of God -- ...i.e. it is that which makes God what He is, the one God. Thus love ceases to be a qualifying--i.e. secondary--property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate. Love as God's mode of existence "hypostasizes" God, constitutes His being. Therefore, as a result of love, the ontology of God is not subject to the necessity of substance. Love is identified with ontological freedom."

see....easy....after long slow thoughtful reading of Being as Communion or its sources among the writings of the Capidocean Fathers.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 12:50:03 AM by Seraphim98 » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2010, 02:26:43 PM »


In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians.

Well, on the basis of defects in the doctrine of the Trinity, I would probably say the same about everyone else except for the EOC, OOC, and ACE.
So you think this would lead to Catholics and Protestants worshiping a different god?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2010, 04:42:43 PM »


In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians.

Well, on the basis of defects in the doctrine of the Trinity, I would probably say the same about everyone else except for the EOC, OOC, and ACE.
So you think this would lead to Catholics and Protestants worshiping a different god?

On some level, yes.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2010, 04:45:59 PM »


In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians.

Well, on the basis of defects in the doctrine of the Trinity, I would probably say the same about everyone else except for the EOC, OOC, and ACE.
So you think this would lead to Catholics and Protestants worshiping a different god?

On some level, yes.
Interesting. I think that the idea that there is only one person in God separates modalists from EOs and OOs to a much greater degree with regard to Theology than the filoque separates Catholics and Protestants from EOs and OOs.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2010, 04:54:35 PM »


In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians.

Well, on the basis of defects in the doctrine of the Trinity, I would probably say the same about everyone else except for the EOC, OOC, and ACE.
So you think this would lead to Catholics and Protestants worshiping a different god?

On some level, yes.
Interesting. I think that the idea that there is only one person in God separates modalists from EOs and OOs to a much greater degree with regard to Theology than the filoque separates Catholics and Protestants from EOs and OOs.

I don't think I have indicated otherwise. I agree.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2010, 04:58:15 PM »


In fact, I would almost have to argue that they worship a different God than that God worshipped by Trinitarian Christians.

Well, on the basis of defects in the doctrine of the Trinity, I would probably say the same about everyone else except for the EOC, OOC, and ACE.
So you think this would lead to Catholics and Protestants worshiping a different god?

On some level, yes.
Interesting. I think that the idea that there is only one person in God separates modalists from EOs and OOs to a much greater degree with regard to Theology than the filoque separates Catholics and Protestants from EOs and OOs.

I don't think I have indicated otherwise. I agree.
I understand.  Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jake C
Catechumen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America
Posts: 88



« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2010, 04:53:35 AM »

Sorry for being a Johnny-come-lately to this thread, but just had to mention that not all Protestants adhere to a flawed view of the Trinity. My family is Southern Baptist, and since my conversion, many of the elder members of my family have investigated our theology and emphatically agree with Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, including rejection of the Filioque (or rather the implications thereof. Being Baptist, they reject creeds outright). This agreement in Trinitarian theology is a major reason why they have quit proselytizing, and in fact, outright approved of my conversion.

Anyway, my point is that there ARE in fact some Protestants who hold correct Trinitarian beliefs. Our friend Cleopas seems, based on my reading of the thread, to be included in that number.
Logged

Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me Thy statutes.
Tags: modalism Sabellianism heresy Trinity 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.171 seconds with 71 queries.