Posted by Richard E., et al on 9/2/2001, 2:56 pm

Posted by Richard E. on 7/7/2001, 6:28 am I have also rexamined many of my Chapel beliefs over the years, including the oneness/trinity issue. I still hold to the oneness view because I just think it makes more sense in light of who the Bible says that God is. It is consistent with both the Old Testament and the New. I think the "fellowshipping with the Son of Man" teachings were a reach. That said, I think this and other doctrinal issues pale in comparison to many other, much more important issues that face the church and the end of the age. Over fifty percent of the world has never even heard the gospel in their own "heart" language let alone have the luxury of debating the subtle nuances of Greek and Hebrew words and which scripture takes precedence over another. Many people in the world do not believe that God speaks in their language so He must be a foreign God. He is unable to tell them that He loves them in their own language. They have never heard the simple scripture, "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son" to save all tribes and peoples in the world. Now I realize that I sound a bit like my mother (and probably yours) who used to try and get me to eat my dinner by making me feel guilty by describing to me the dilemna of the "Starving Armenians." It never worked on me by the way, it just made me feel a little gulity. I apologize if I sound like your mother with the guilt trip. Still, I am not sure that in the light of eternity, God wants His people spending countless hours debating the finer points of Greek interpretation when the majority of the world has not even heard His basic salvation message. Is doctrine important? Of course, it always has been. Am I saying that people should not debate this issue on this board? Of course not, I find the discussions quite interesting like the rest of you. My point is simply that all of us should take a step back occassionally and realize this issue is not nearly as important in God's plan as we like to think it is. And that goes for either viewpoint. In the not too distant future, all of us will know the answers. In the meantime, let's expand God's kingdom and reach the starving! Richard Esterly ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 7/7/2001, 7:49 am , in reply to "My Take on UROG vs. Trinity" Thanks, Richard. I agree with most of what you say, except I myself have decided trinitarian doctrine is more plausible than Oneness doctrine. My greatest objectin is not to Oneness doctrine, even its UROG version, but more with the "Jesus is not God" doctrine that some ex-Chapelites are claiming the UROG theology is compatible with, or is in some sense the thing that helped them come to their present belief that Jesus is not God. Also, I strongly agree that the real task of the church is to reach the lost, but that those theologies undercut that effort by drawing people out of the church, causing confusion and weakening and dividing the church. A strong current of the Oneness and "Jesus is not God" theologies is that the church is apostate because of its trinitarian doctrine and people should come out it. That is another objection I have to those theologies. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Richard E. on 7/7/2001, 9:32 am , in reply to "Re: My Take on UROG vs. Trinity" Steve, I certainly do not hold that Trinitarians are apostate and must come out their Trinitarian views. Most of the best leaders in the Church today are Trinitarians and I do not plan on trying to convince them otherwise. I do not hold that they are apostate. I just disagree with their view. I sit under a Trinitarian pastor and have not been to a Oneness church since I left the Chapel. Most Oneness churches are entirely too legalistic for me, and frankly, a little to bent on their Oneness doctrine. I will say that ANY doctrine, be it oneness, baptism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, dispensationalism, etc. will cause divisions and even "confusion" for churches and believers. This is because all truly born-again believers have differing views on almost every doctrine yet we all proclaim a God who represents absolute truth. We are all searching for absolute truth yet we all disagree. That alone has always been very confusing and troubling to me. I am not sure that you can blame the oneness doctrine for division and confusion in the church anymore than you can the rapture doctrine, for example. It is true that some Oneness believers have taken their beliefs to extremes but I am not sure they are much different than Trinitarians who hold that Oneness believers are not even saved. ---------- Posted by Cliff on 7/7/2001, 4:49 pm , in reply to "Re: My Take on UROG vs. Trinity" Amen ---------- Posted by Strange fire.... on 7/7/2001, 10:00 pm , in reply to "Re: My Take on UROG vs. Trinity" From the historical record it isn't difficult to see that when the Trinitarian doctrine was being developed and enforced, at times with "confess it or die", is when the church became weak, backslidden and lost it's vision. So maybe, just maybe, you should consider the matter from the opposite point in time. When Trinitarianism became entrenched in what is now called Christianity, the Church just possibly was no longer the church (look at the history), therefore, not being in this"revised" Church is hardly qualification one is not in the church of God. I am not claiming it was Tinitarianism in itself that caused the apostasy but is just more evidence of the "church's" darkness they eventually imbibed. What is commonly referred to as the church today is, by a wide margin, Trinitarian. This alone should at least raise some questions as one considers the darkness many are in who name Christ as Lord. Trinitarians don't have the market cornered on apostasy, but, whether one likes it or not, most "leaders" in the "church" are Trinitarians and do bear responsiblilty, at least for their triune followers. When one makes the appeal foro unity in the church, usually under the umbrella of the Trinity doctrine of course, it makes me chuckle. It is very similar to the cry for "bi-partisanship" by the left wing politicians. They are all for it when things are going their way but become bitter outsiders when they aren't getting their way. Bi-partisanship (unity) usually means " we're buddies as long as you agree with my left wing dogma". This analogy does fall short as it pertains to the church because in the secular world, under our form of government, bi-partisianship was never a goal nor an attractive concept. Bipartisanship flies in the face of separation of powers, one of the primary tenets on which our Republic was built. Conversely, the Church was always to be united, free of partisanship, with Christ as it's head. There was no separation of powers. How can one body be separated? I doubt the views one has on the Godhead today has much bearing on their salvation. The opposing Godhead doctrines can and do cause division but hardly more than Mary worship, for example. I don't think Paul and Barnabus had differing views on the Godhead yet the contention between them was so sharp that they separated from each other. Wow! Who was wrong? I don't believe the church is vibrant in their testimony and walk with Christ because their hearts have grown cold or maybe never reborn. Disobedience is rampant and there are few voices in the church seriously dealing with it. I am a firm believer in the principle of sowing disobedience reaps deception (among other things). It probably will take a voice in the wilderness to wake up the believers in the "church". Some will take heed and others will call them separated, outside the church, isolated, apostate, bitter, confused, etc., etc. Just another day in defending darkness I guess. Unity for unity's sake is not the answer and appeals for the same have no legitimacy in my opinion, no matter how "reasonable" they may sound. God certainly isn't for unity for unity's sake if it brings darkness is He? Walking in the Spirit is the answer, whatever one's belief on the Godhead may be. Walking in the Spirit will only be common place when submission to Christ is taken seriously. The church will never evangelize the world successfully until it's own house is in order, living the life of Christ. when it is no longer us but Christ who dwells in us. Currently, for the most part, we are offering up strange fire to God. Why would God be interested in bringing more people into the deadness, confusion, darkness and disobedinece of what many call the "church", regardless of it's view on the Godhead? The resulting judgement would only be harsher would it not? Gordy