Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | kalos | 126371 | ||
EdB: Thank you for the historical background of the Oneness Pentecostal movement. And thank you for your previous Note in which you pointed out that the Assemblies of God, as well as other Pentecostal denominations, do not hold to the heretical antitrinitarian doctrine -- a doctrine of demons if ever there was one. Everyone deciding for himself what doctrine he will accept or reject is not sola scriptura. Instead it is SOLO scriptura. The problem with the UPC and Apostolic churches is not the principle of sola scriptura. Their problem is the false notion of SOLO scriptura -- me and my Bible. Sola scriptura does not mean "me and my Bible". I.e., it does not mean just give me my Bible and a desert island, I can figure it out for myself in isolation from the body of Christ, and "I don't need no" Greek words studies, lexicons, or the gifted teachers that Christ Himself has given to the church. What I described in the last sentence is SOLO scriptura -- just me and my Bible. Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
2 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | EdB | 126469 | ||
Kalos Here is the rub and one that I had a hard time getting a grasp on but once I did it has helped understand the danger of certain claims we freely make. In this case I guarantee, that they are just as sure from scripture what they say is correct and what you say is wrong as you are and vice versa. Oneness Pentecostals are not a bunch of illiterate heretics out to think up a bunch of bad theology. If you were to study them you would find they are faithful men just as dedicated to the truth as you and that some how view scripture to prove in oneness. The only difference between them and us is that we stand on the side of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy isn’t established on scripture alone it is birthed in scripture but is also formed by church history, traditions, oral traditions and etc. It was decided at various councils, and passed down through catechisms, creeds and even hymns. Many of these are the very things we see being rejected in the church today whilst we beat our chest proclaiming sola scriptura. The thing to remember when you find yourself in a debate with another person over a religious point of view. Unless the person is a nut or a little goofy, that person believes just as strongly as you do that they have correctly interpreted scripture in a way that supports their case and that in fact you’re the one that is wrong in interpretation. In fact many of them claim sola scriptura and feel you are adding to scripture. This is not to be construed as any kind of defense of oneness. I’m just trying to make a point that what one calls sola scriptura another calls bad Bible interpretation and that, that street runs two ways. EdB |
||||||
3 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | kalos | 126486 | ||
EdB: I do not doubt or dispute the probability that there may be some Christians in Oneness churches. The problem is that a group’s denial of an essential biblical teaching excludes that group from Christianity. While there may be some Christians in Oneness churches, the movement as a whole is non-Christian. As someone has said, “It would be inappropriate to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian.” Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
4 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | EdB | 126494 | ||
Kalos You missed my point the doctrine of the Trinity of which I totally agree with, so there is no misunderstandings, was not considered "orthodox" until the council of Nicea 325. That is not to say that to me and to you scripture does not clearly prove nor is that to say it was a made up doctrine that came into being in 325. The point I'm making is for it to be declared orthodox it took the council of Nicea. If you had been raised Oneness and were reading this thread you would wonder how Kalos got so blind that he could not see the Bible clearly teaches Oneness. And you would view the council of Nicea as misguided men probably influenced by outside factors to make the decision they did. But again the point I trying to make is for something to be considered “orthodox” it has to carry the stamp of approval of the church. So all is not Sola Scriptura. EdB |
||||||