Eirinn :  
Txgangsta :  

I decided to start a new thread to focus on the discussions of the Trinity. I knew we had this conversation before and it is important to discuss about this, for it is quite crucial doctrine in Christianity that affects other doctrines as well and that it is well supported in scripture as a whole. Main reason why we believe that Oneness Pentecostal is not biblical because it fails to answer to the different instances when the different Godheads exist at the same time and communicate between one another, showing some type of distinction between the three, while at the same time, still holding that God is one.

From reading what you wrote to Txgangsta, it has come to my attention that you have some confusion with what the Trinity doctrine actually believes (statements like "separating God" and continually emphasizing God is one, which is not the disagreement), so it's important to clear that up for you. Here is basically the summary of the Trinity doctrine: There is one God in essence and being, existing in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons, or aspects. Person doesn't mean individual, separate beings in this case. 

I will put your belief of the Godhead below. (However, if you are defending the belief of the denomination, I would you to provide their articles of faith. I tried to look this up, but I only have their summary statement of faith, which from my experience, doesn't tell the whole story. If you are not trying to defend the denomination, then we can ignore the above):
What we believe is that God is one being who we view from different perspectives depending on the situation. We do not divide God, and I find the suggestion somewhat offensive. God is our father in creation, he was the son in that as Jesus He had no biological father (much like the Bible says Adam was the son of God for the same reason, but no one tries to deify or worship Him as a fourth person in the Godhead),
He is the Holy Ghost in the way He manifests himself to us today.

It's interesting that you gave the analogy of the man, because that analogy is actually used quite often to illustrate the Trinity, and even though all analogies will break down when describing the mystery of the Trinity, here are some reasons why: The analogy is saying that all those roles (father, husband, and son) exist for the man. However, it also shows that the man exists at all times when the man is being the father, the husband, or the son. So his essence, being, nature is man and is one and continues to exist as man. Also, just because the man in a specific situation is holding one specific role, it doesn't mean that the other roles stops existing. He is still a husband, and son, and father. So the man is the father, the husband, and the son at all times, and the husband, the son, and the father is the man, but the husband is not the father, nor are they the son.  

(regarding Gethsemane) "...Rather what we see in the garden is Jesus praying as a man."

There is a problem about this, because in saying that Jesus is praying as a man, you are saying that two beings exist separately in Jesus, and the man side is praying to the divine side, which won't make sense if the belief is that Jesus is God manifested in flesh.  

"In fact, trinitarianism is unbiblical. I can point to several scriptures in which the God plainly states He is one, and there is none other. Zechariah said they would look on God whom they had pierced, not His son. Moses said the Lord was one indivisible Lord. Isaiah said there was one, and there was none before the Lord (bear in mind, they believed strictly in one God, one being), none after, and none WITH Him." 

This is where I find you don't understand what the Trinity is, because the foundation of the Trinity doctrine IS that God is one being. So putting focus in saying that God is one being is not where we disagree on. I do have one question though. When mentioning Zechariah, why did you distinctively say that it is "God whom they had pierced, and not His son"? Doesn't the UPC believe that the Son is God?

"The modern Jews refute Christianity and have been quoted as saying their reason for rejecting it is because it makes God a trinity while Moses told them plainly He was ONE. "

Don't you think that the Modern Jews' rejection of Christianity is more because they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Jesus is God? On the other hand, the Messianic Jews, or the movement of Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah also believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, so I wouldn't say that the Trinity is the main reason that modern Jews refute Christianity.

"Speaking of the early church, you will find no reference to the trinity prior to a group of men who came along after the apostles were gone and decided that God was three persons. Prior to that, there was no trinity doctrine in Christianity. It began as a pagan doctrine with such gods as Dragon and Baal. The idea was introduced as a way of mixing the ideas man was accustomed to with Christianity. Finally, there is no scripture to support a trinity unless by chance a modernized translation has done so. "

^
|
Poor arguments overall. Of course there was no Trinity doctrine until after the apostles. There wasn't any set doctrine until after the apostles. All set doctrines that Christians believe are established after the apostles are gone, because they follow the apostles when they are still alive and there was no need for set doctrines. Also, no documentation states that Trinity was established based on paganism, but by the understanding of scripture that God is one, and yet there are instances that these different persons of the one God having distinctive roles, distinctive wills and communication amongst each other. Again, your confusion is what "persons" mean and how is it different with "being". Finally, you can't argue modern translation when the discussion of the Trinity with scripture is way before any modern translation, even before the earliest of "modern" translations.

I had actually planned on making a thread to discuss what oneness Christians believed, but this should serve the same purpose and more.

First let me say that (as you know) I'm willing to discuss this, but if it becomes more about me having to defend myself against people accusing me of paganism or heresy, I may well opt out again. Not that I don't have answers, rather I don't believe in arguing.


Misunderstandings
I can't say that I know what all the trinity doctrine entails, so I do apologize for any misunderstandings.

However, I also feel it should be pointed out that you don't seem to understand Oneness doctrine fully either and txgangsta has many misconceptions about it as well. Perhaps herein lies the biggest issue for us in this discussion. However I don't really think it would be a feasible task to try explaining everything oneness doctrine entails or every scripture we could use to teach it in a single post, I'll gladly answer any questions.


In reply to your points
I will now attempt to address everything you said, but if I should miss anything, please bring it to my attention.

The man analogy
Either I misunderstand you, or you just said the same thing I was driving at, but viewed it in a different way. The man is the man and only the man. The man is NOT father, nor is he son, nor is he husband. Rather he is simply the man. We simply apply these terms to him to describe him in a way that makes sense. He is not one man in three essences, but one man viewed in three different ways.

In much the same way, you'd be hard pressed to find an adherent to true oneness doctrine who would say that the Holy Ghost created the universe. While in all actuality we would be acknowledging this in saying that God is one person, essence, substance, or being, we do not view Him as the Holy Ghost in creation, simply because the wording makes no sense. He is the Father or the creator in our eyes when we view Him through the lenses of creation.

To say the father is the son would be incorrect, and while many well meaning oneness believers would say so, it is not in reality what we teach. Rather we believe that the same essence, substance, being, or whatever you choose to call Him (hereafter let me simply refer to Him as God. I do not put any difference between the terms as the end result for all is the same) that is the Father is also the same one that is the Son. So you see, the Father may not be the Son, but the one we call Father we also call the Son and the Holy Ghost. It's all a matter of perspective.


The charge of Sabellianism
We do not teach Sabellianism, for a simple clarification, simply look it up on Wikipedia (yes, they actually get it right for the most part). This is what txgangsta referred to Oneness doctrine as teaching, but again, it is incorrect. We do share similarities, but we do not agree.


You'll also likely not meet a Oneness pentecostal who declares that the Father (or Holy Ghost) died on the cross: He did not. In fact, not only does this not make sense, it's outright incorrect. This was a slander against Sabellianism, and we hear some people say it today about Oneness Pentecostals. I assure you, we believe no such thing.


Gethsemane
For this, simply look to the crucifixion: Jesus spoke the words "Into thy hands I commit my spirit" and "Gave up the ghost". Jesus quite clearly had a physical body and a spirit given this passage's wording. I am not saying that He was not fully God, but I am not denying His humanity either. He was made like us in all ways, and as we are one being with both spirit and body, so was He. When we pray, our physical bodies are praying, not our spirits (with exception of Paul's wording about praying in tongues). Again, look at Gethsemane: Jesus told his disciples "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" and counselled them to pray. So Jesus as God was willing, but His flesh was struggling, and this was the point of Gethsemane.

And yes, I am aware He was referring to the disciples flesh.


Being, essence, substance, etc

As I said above, I make no distinction, so when I said being, you could simply replace that with essence. Either way it remains that the Jews believed in a singular God, not a triune God. This I know you will agree with.
This idea was introduced much later.


Jewish acceptance
Regardless of what their biggest problem with it is (my apologies for trying to speak on behalf of millions of Jews), it cannot be denied that trinitarianism and Judaism cannot be reconciled. One must give way to the other, as Jewish teachings deny any trinity, not only because of Jesus, but also because the idea of a trinity itself contradicts their doctrine. And had there been a trinity all along, why would Moses not teach them that they were incorrect in assuming monotheism was correct? Why would God wait until the new testament to correct this?

Messianic Jews religion is a religion that confusingly attempts to reconcile Judaisim and modern trinitarian Christianity and fails to nail down either one. I cannot take their acceptance of a doctrine as a grounds for believing a thing. My apologies for failing to clarify that my only reason for mentioning the Jews in the first place was to state the point that true Judaisim cannot accept a trinity because it denies their scriptures, and indeed, Moses himself taught a strict monotheistic doctrine. And this is their sticking point: a man that God Himself spoke face to face with was told by God that he was a singular God, and this was apparently rightly understood by them as they were never corrected for it. So regardless of how we look at it, we can see that God agreed with how they looked at it, and that is that there was One God, one being, one essence, one substance. They would have (and did) denied a trinity, and God approved.


"All doctrines that Christians believe are established after the apostles are gone"

With all due respect, this is simply not true. UPC or Apostolic Pentecostals teach ONLY what was taught in the Bible. We do not formulate a doctrine based on what the believers after the apostles were gone taught. Quite literally, if the scripture does not expressly say it, we do not believe it. And if a doctrine was formed after the era of the apostles, we deny it. Hence our opposition to the trinity doctrine.

As I told txgangsta, scripture alone can save us, and scripture alone can condemn us. You and I have had this very discussion before Play, and this is why we couldn't agree and why we will never agree. I don't accept many of your doctrine's founding sources, as you accept the interpretation and formulation of doctrine of the post apostolic Church leaders based on their understanding of scriptures. I do not mean ill of you, I simply feel the need to point out that unless doctrine is viewed with the Bible as the only authority, I can't have a discussion on it as we won't accept one another's sources for doctrine. Or rather, I won't accept all of your sources, and you won't accept my view on the need to base doctrine solely on scripture.


Finally, note that when I say "We" I am actually speaking for myself mostly, but for the most part I can speak on behalf of what the UPC believes as a whole. However, I do not care about what they believe, only what the scripture says, so if they disagree with it on anything, I do not identify with them on the matter.

I want to admit that I have never thought of the Holy Spirit as a person in any way. God and Jesus yes, but for me the Holy Spirit has been something less personified. Something like a thought, or a conception, totally without  ego or an agenda except for that of God. And ofcource together they form the trinity. Without one there could not be the other two.

Eirinn :

I know UPC just as much as you do. Some of my best friends for 6 years are UPC. I know what you teach very well.

I call you Sabellianist because it is your old heresy. You're nothing new. Sabellius was condemned for rejecting the Trinitarian teaching. I so chastise you. I actually think Sabellianism is better than the Oneness teaching because it, at least, is consistent. If the Father and the Son are the same person, then what difference does it matter who died on the cross? Sabellius was even more rational than the UPC!

Txgangsta : I refuse to trade slanders. Such actions are explicitly condemned in the Bible.

I give scriptures to support my doctrine, and all you tell me is that a bunch of random people condemned another man for it. Yeah...the apostles were condemned too.

Sadly I don't believe you understand us at all, and you refuse to ever do so. May God have mercy on your soul. Should you ever choose to value scripture above the early catholic doctrine, PM me and I will discuss what it says with you gladly. I am terribly sorry you choose not to listen, and I never meant to do anything but help my fellow man.


play4fun : I believe that even as opposed as you are to my beliefs, you couldn't blame me for saying in light of accusations and flaming such as this and his reply in moblin's thread, that I refuse to be bothered any further. Please either close this thread or edit my name from it if you would, sir. I leave this in God's hands.

Eirinn :

Hide behind your shield of pride and ignorance, Eirinn. It is the only viable guard against truth.

And while you attempt to shield yourself with the Bible, do you not know that the same early catholics who condemned Sabellius were the same men who approved the canonization of scripture? These men who wrote volumes on the nature of the Triune God are the very same who gathered the books of the bible, rejecting some and accepting others. How can you affirm the same teachings and reject them simultaneously?

Txgangsta : My apologies if the comment about Catholic doctrine seemed rude. I wouldn't intentionally do so, and never meant to belittle, mock, or ridicule.

Again, if you wish to talk (though I know you said you do not, and I respect that), feel free to PM me.

I wish you the greatest blessings in Christ, with all my heart.

Txgangsta :   Eirinn is not hiding he simply dislikes arguing because it leads to posts like your last where people start to get mean and that just isn't Eirinn's style.  He is willing to discuss this with you as he said.  Just try being nicer about it because I do enjoy reading everyone's views on this topic including yours but when mean posts are made (well I just think there are better ways to discuss it).  See I really would have liked to hear Eirinn respond to some of the points you made at the end of your last post, If you would have worded it in a manner without using insults I would be willing to bet Eirinn would have answered your question at the end of the post.

Eirinn :   I completely agree with your "policy", for lack of a better word of not engaging in arguments.  What we need is respectful debate not hotheaded replies.  Also I just thought you should see this post, so I summoned.