Home » Discussion Area » Introductions & General » My Attraction To Faith Assembly
| My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #659] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 04:28  |
 Michael The Disciple
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2007
Location: Somerset Ky |
Senior Member |
|
|
Greetings all!
Michael Gibson is my name. Some of you may know of me from Paltalk. I want to weigh in on my own attraction to Faith Assembly and then hopefully have some doctrinal discussions with you.
My Faith Assembly story will be different than most certainly not more intimate in knowledge of the Church or Hobart Freeman.
In 1981 I was in transition in my walk. I had considered myself a Pentecostal/Charismatic for 7 years. I had been having fellowship with an international Church at that time known as "The Ceylon Pentecostal Mission". They had hundreds of Churches worldwide and I was meeting with a small satelite group of theirs in the Dayton Ohio area.
Their group taught some similar things as FA. They taught faith healing and it was sin to go to doctors. They taught the Manchild (overcomers doctrine)and practiced head covering for women. They taught the doctrine that Christians could be demon possessed.
They had worship meetings that were wonderful. A nice blend of Charismatic praise and Pentecostal emotion! I had great respect for this group but I saw the truth of baptism in Jesus name. They opposed this strongly.
After being rebaptized I taught a message on this and was quickly censored. I had left the group and was having some fellowship with the small group where I was baptized in Jesus name.
Several times when I would comment on the word the Pastor would say "Hobart Freeman says that same thing". When I asked about Bro. Freeman this Pastor had visited Faith Assembly when it was in the Barn. He had many tapes by HF.
I did not stay long with that group but my interest was sparked in FA. The main reason why was they baptized in Jesus name. I got a few tapes by HF and was impressed enough that I hardly slept that night. The teaching of discipleship and the challenge of the faith message stirred my soul. Part one
[Updated on: Thu, 13 September 2007 05:13]
|
|
| |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #661 is a reply to message #659] |
Thu, 13 September 2007 05:08  |
Michael The Disciple
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2007
Location: Somerset Ky |
Senior Member |
|
|
Over the next 3 years I accumulted well over a hundred of Bro. Freemans tapes. I went and visited probably 8 or 10 times. I was always thrilled with the worship. I think it was my biggest attraction to FA.! Just the worship was enough to keep me for weeks.
I had admiration for HF. He taught discipleship very strong which was and still is very important to me. The teaching of discipleship was a tremendous attraction for me to FA. Of all its doctrine that probably blessed me most.
The testimonies of trusting God alone for healing were also riveting as they had also been with Ceylon Pentecostal Mission. Seeing the Sisters with veils was also an attraction since very few groups I knew of practiced it.
I loved the way HF would exalt truth. As if it were life and death! His intense manner had a real influence in my life. I will share more on my own perspective of FA hopefully tomorrow.
Until then two things. I have not talked with Henry Carandante since about 1985-86. At that time he had been doing some travelling with Jim Brenemen doing some ministry. Anyone know anything about him?
Also I did visit the Faith Assembly that now is back in the early 90's when Sis Freeman was still living and they were still in the Warehouse building.
Many times I set in the praise and worship segment of Faith Assembly on Paltalk and am truly blessed. Question? Does Bro. Joe teach ANYTHING different than HF did? Is there full agreement in the teaching of the two?
[Updated on: Thu, 13 September 2007 05:16]
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3787 is a reply to message #665] |
Sat, 18 October 2008 15:59 |
JWBTI
Messages: 253
Registered: March 2007
Location: Ohio |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hombre, I think this will help, so I posted in both areas.
Good Morning Brothers,
Just thought I'd share a little of what Bro Freeman has to say ref the subject.
Exploring Biblical Theology:
Dr Hobart Freeman
Pg 70-71-72
The Doctrine of God:
God's Nature----His Triunity
The doctrine of the Triunity of God logically follows the study of the unity or oneness of the Godhead.
The Scriptures show that in the nature of the one God there are three distinct personalities revealed
as Father,Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the triunity or the triune nature of God is a revelation
from His Word and cannot be conceived by observing the created order or general revelation.
The tripersonality of God is not tritheism, that is, three seperate gods. There are three eternal
personalities------Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-----but only one divine essence called God. According to
Scripture, the three personalities are equal and eternal. There are no earthly analogies to express
adequately the truth of the triunity of God. While there have been many attempts to do this, none
are adequate. Thereford,it is advisable to take Scriptures for what they say. God is what He reveals
Himself to be in His Word----not what men say He is, not what the Unitarians or the liberals say He is.
He is one Divine Spirit, eternally manifested as Father, Son , and Holy Spirit. It should be obvious
that if God is not what He reveals Himself to be in His Word, then He is yet unrevealed, and man
does not know what He is like.
Ron
|
|
| | |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3800 is a reply to message #665] |
Sat, 18 October 2008 23:51 |
JWBTI
Messages: 253
Registered: March 2007
Location: Ohio |
Senior Member |
|
|
Alanbook wrote:
Like I said somewhere earlier these individuals are stuck on two doctrines; Water baptism in Jesus name, when they know you've been baptized in this manner then its Jesus is the father their second pet peeve doctrine.
Alan is there a problem with Water baptism in Jesus Name ?
Ron
|
|
| | | |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3809 is a reply to message #3808] |
Sun, 19 October 2008 02:25 |
JWBTI
Messages: 253
Registered: March 2007
Location: Ohio |
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael The Disciple wrote:
Faith Assembly people were baptized in the name of Jesus. Does it seem unusual to you all that there are almost NO Trinitarian groups baptize the way you do?
Your baptism is in agreement with Oneness and dis agreement with them.
If baptism in Jesus name is true then do Oneness Churches get credit for being almost the sole witness of it in the Earth?
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Michael,
We at Faith Assembly were accused of being Oneness because of this and our stand
On Colossians 3:17 whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the Name of the Lord
Jesus Christ !
The Trinitarians hated us, and because we didn’t go to the other extreme the Oneness
People rejected us also ! We had an unique way of uniting people.
Michael you bring some good thoughts to the table, and I thank you for the kind and
Loving spirit you used to explain your thinking.
But I am settled an steadfast in His Triunity.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------
Alan,
Thanks for the clarification on baptism in Jesus Name.
-----------------------------------------------------------
soaringeagle:
Welcome to the board !
Ron
|
|
| | |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3814 is a reply to message #3812] |
Sun, 19 October 2008 15:25 |
 |
NBF56
Messages: 51
Registered: February 2008
Location: Ohio |
Member |
|
|
Seems to me that someone (Michael) has a really hard time accepting that we do not buy the Oneness doctrine he's pushing so hard. And that's what he's doing, pushing way too hard. Sorry, Michael, you're not helping yourself.
Overemphasizing ANY doctrine is dangerous. It is unbalanced. It looks as though it is being made a litmus test for fellowship. Oneness is not the historic, orthodox view of the Godhead. Yes, God is One, but what is being forgotten here is that while He created man in His image, we cannot turn around and view God as just a bigger, more perfect, more powerful version of ourselves. He is totally other than what we are. He is Eternal. We are not. There are aspects to His Being that no finite being can possess. One of those aspects is His ability to be manifest and active in more than one way simultaneously. The closest we can come to it is to see Him as 3 manifestations, which we imperfectly call "persons" because of their distinctions, in the One God.
The alternative to the orthodox historic understanding of the Triune Godhead is Modalism. I do believe that Modalism was condemned as a heresy. Actually, Modalism is a form of Monarchianism, and early heresy condemned by the Church.
Anyway, Michael, I know you are passionate about this, but you're pushing way too hard.
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3823 is a reply to message #3815] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 02:31 |
 |
william
Messages: 1466
Registered: January 2006 |
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
| Quote: |
Alanbook wrote:
I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have been reading comments by this michael in other posts throughout this board and hes been sharing a lot of doctrinal error and heresay in very subtle ways. Why has know one noticed this?
|
Well, first of all there isn't anything "subtle" about Michael's position. Secondly, we've already been round and round with him over this... we've definitely "noticed". Thirdly, he brought this up in response to your post about "twisting" the Hebrew and Greek Scripture (the person you seem to have been directing the post toward apparently wasn't interested in arguing a baseless charge) and fourthly, the loose application of the term "heresay" (I assume you mean "heresy") needs to be more specifically defined before leveling the term at someone with whom you have a disagreement, especially since the term can also be used to describe one who has departed from the doctrine of Christ. This last definition is apparently the one you have chosen. I'm sure I cannot do the term justice but I will say that the word generally means one who doesn't hold to the same beliefs as the "orthodox" members of his/her group. So using the definition in its less specific form would mean that most of us are FA heretics since we don't hold strictly to FA orthodoxy. As Christians, we too may well be considered heretics by others who hail by the same name, and who are clearly the majority.
Most of us would take the word in its more restrictive sense and apply it only to those who do not hold to the substitutionary atonement or to those who would deny the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus.
You then quote HEF:
| Quote: |
Alanbook wrote :
Then I ran across a teaching in Exploring Biblical Theology it says: The Scriptures also deal with discipline regarding heretics and their heretical doctrines. Heretics are actually deceivers who, in the guise of being Christians or ministers of the gospel, intentionally deny or pervert the doctrine of Christ, especially with regard to his incarnation, His deity, or the substitutionary atonement. Paul treated denial of the resurrection with severity; in fact, The Bible treats any denial of such essential truths with the same severity.
Whenever a person tampers with the doctrine of Christ, in ignorance or willingly, he is in grave danger. He is not to be dealt with in the same manner as someone who has been disfellowshipped or even excommunicated, but he is to be treated in an entirely different way because he is perverting the one thing that can save mankind_the doctrine of Christ.
The deceiver described in II John 7-11 is a false teacher, an apostate, and an antichrist by virtue of his denial or perversion of the doctrine of Christ. He is called a deceiver in this passage because he professes to be a Christian or a minister of the gospel. John's command to deny a normal greeting to a known deceiver, or admittance into a Christian home, should not be applied to unbelievers. It was not the Apostles intent for Christians to treat the lost in such manner, or none would be reached with the gospel; but he was obviously speaking of one who would use the occasion to pervert the believer and lead him astray from the truth. An unbeliever is dealt with in an entirely different manner.
The form of treatment for a deceiver is clearly set forth in II John 10. He is to be denied any form of hospitality in a Christian home or any conventional form of greeting. The force of the Greek shows that one should not even say hello because that would be partaking of his evil deeds. The separation of the Christian and the antichristian must be absolute because any hospitality or greeting is tantamount to recognition and endorsement of the heresy. Page 246-247
So from this I have concluded; that what we have here is an individual that is so obsessed with heresy that he has opened his mind up to possession and he is compelled to proclaim his heretical doctrines. Any type of sharing or reasoning will not win this type of indivdual back to Christ. We are dealing with a deceiving entity, that will not let his victim comprehend the truth.
|
While I have no problem with someone coming to the conclusion you've set forth, it is problematic that you would use HEF's teachings to give validity to those conclusions. He made it clear that those who held to the "oneness" position did not fall into the category of heresy (defined in the more restrictive sense).
Mixed up? Yes. Heretical in the 2-John sense? No.
There have been many throughout history that have held to the "oneness" position, men like William Branham, for instance.
I can't change what you believe about Michael, or the others that are in the "oneness" camp, but I can say that you go way over the line when you yoke his position with those who are anti-christian.
There is something about Michael that I like... (Certainly not his incessant defense of the oneness doctrine!)
... perhaps praying for him would be the best step at this stage... you think?
Blessings,
William
[Updated on: Mon, 20 October 2008 03:30]
I want to believe!
|
|
|
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3827 is a reply to message #3823] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 13:55 |
|
william
Messages: 1466
Registered: January 2006 |
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is beyond an obsession. Once the subject comes up with these individuals they will not stop as evident in these posts. I have witnessed to oneness "fanatics", their mind is set and there is no turning back they see us as the ones deluded.
|
I don't disagree... If you read the last go-round on this issue you'll find the pattern is exactly the same.
| Quote: |
Also, I apologize for the typos, like I said earlier I am not able to type as well as some. But from your note I think you knew what I was trying to say and it appeared you were trying to belittle me for this fault.
|
Look, I don't belittle you or anyone else for typos, I'm sorry it came off that way. I had to look up the word to find out how it was spelled after quoting you and wanted to make sure you weren't meaning something different. (There is a different concept expressed by the term ‘heretick’ in Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject… which was the reason I even brought it up in the first place.)
Besides, I had to edit my note three times before achieving perfection <grin> so I'm certainly not going to belittle you for this kind of stuff.
I'm not immune from a little jab now and again (due mainly to uncrucified flesh) but I did not intend to belittle you for typos or any other grammatical error... I know full well my limitations in this area.
| Quote: |
If someone is doctrinally off and is able to influence Christians that are not well grounded in the Word then you end up making disciples that keep reproducing the same errors and they in turn convey them to others. There are a lot of people I like out there as well as in the world I speak of, and I have to tell them like it is because the possiblity of there souls being lost. If this mans error is no big deal then why make a big deal out of any error as long as it is not considered serious, but by whom will this decision be made. Lets put up a tree and eat, drink, and be merry. We could say at xmas this is a time to get together and be a witness to others.
|
I take all error seriously. I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore anything... I took exception only to the fact that you misapplied HEF's teachings. Are you suggesting that it was wrong for me to point this out, and that I should have ignored it?
| Quote: |
Why would you tear into JisAmazed because of his stand on the bible and single him out with the different types of ridicule that I have seen on this board. I am amazed at how many people have been mocked and put down because they see things totally different now. But this man who is obsessed its like well we knew about it. But we like him!!!!!!!!!
|
Yep, I like him. I'm sorry he is mixed up on the oneness issue, but yes, there is something about the guy that I appreciate (again, it isn't his obsession with oneness!). Read his other notes, the ones that have nothing to do with oneness, you'll find a very likeable person. Yes, he's obsessed with this doctrine (I believe you earlier used the term 'possessed' which is pretty strong language, btw) but it doesn't seem likely to me that anyone is buying what he is selling (unless they are already in the oneness camp.)
What can I say about Jae... I'm guilty as charged. He was obsessed with an overwhelming dismay that there were those still holding to the foundational truths of HEF. He started an immediate campaign to remove this one blot from an otherwise spotless humanity. With rifle-like precision every note advanced his agenda... but alas, we were using shotguns! Jae should have learned the meaning behind the old proverb: "don't take a knife to a gun fight".
| Quote: |
Could you at least show me where Dr Freeman made this statement that oneness was not considered heretical?
|
Nope, but I'm sure others heard it as well... perhaps someone will give us cassette-tape number!<grin>
| Quote: |
Anyone that rises up now that trys to minister in any different fashion then what we accept is immediately put down because of all the different things that go on in these meetings. Would we even recognize a real revival that came along because some individuals in the meetings would do something fanatical and we would see the individuals and then write off the whole meeting and including the leadership involved in this.(This can apply to everything).
|
Tell me about it!
| Quote: |
I hope you did not get your feelings hurt. But do we set by and let certain doctrines that are wrong be proclaimed and others we attack because they do not line up with some view we might have. Where do we draw a line even with HEF, some say that he got off and into legalism. But do we all do whatever is right in our own eyes and make these distinctions. One area you mentioned in your list of legalistic things you were delivered from was TV. But is this really legalism. To tell people that something is filthy and promotes inmorality is just fine now.
|
I don't allow myself to get my feelings hurt... especially by people I've never met. That isn't to say I'm not touchy about certain things, but no more than the next guy (you, for instance).
Concerning TV, I only said I have one now... I didn't get 'delivered' from anything, and I never mentioned my viewing habits or how much I watch it. Presumably you have exactly the same attitude about this matter as I do, since you have a computer and are on the internet (not exactly a bastion of purity)... I'm sure you are discriminating as to your viewing choices.
| Quote: |
Yes I have heard all the arguments for the trashy vision. People say they just watch the news, or educational programs, or sports. But its all the filth they advertise inbetween these shows. Plus your at the least promoting the stations that show their garbage at a later date. Plus all the time that is wasted
are we really seeking first the kingdom of God, or have we all reduced everything down to our different forms of entertainment, and its a casual seeking first the kingdom.
|
Preach it bro! (The same can be said about the internet, btw...) I'm all for you preaching about this evil as long as it doesn't become an obsession with you.
| Quote: |
I am surprised you laid into me and Hombre makes a statement about this being a heretical doctrine and you make light of the things he says, about this and about others. I will look into this further about the heresy(I spelt it rite there), and see if this is just some minor doctrine we all over look because we like someones qualitys. By the way I like Michael also and as I wrote whitney a pm, that I was saddened over this delusion. It is serious!!!!!!!
|
Didn't see Hombre's reference, but you should know by now that I don't play favorite's with Hombre!!!!! (although I like him too!)
| Quote: |
People that use flattery have another agenda, I hope you don't see flattery as charity.
|
Yes, and people who use other people to promote ideas foreign to the original intent may have other agendas as well... it may be a lack of flattery to point that out but it isn’t a lack of charity.
Blessings,
William
I want to believe!
|
|
| |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3833 is a reply to message #3828] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 14:39 |
grandom
Messages: 404
Registered: October 2007 |
Senior Member |
|
|
"Oneness Doctrine" (Jesus Only) vs. Trinitarianism
The Early Church Fathers Declared "Oneness" (Sabellianism) Heresy
The Oneness Doctrine Defined
The Oneness Doctrine appears to be biblical because only Scripture is used, though wrongfully, to support its tenets, declaring that Jesus is not only the Son but also the Father and the Holy Spirit, that is, he is the only person in the Godhead. But, it is a fairly new movement (1913), built on heresies of the past. The basic definitions of Oneness vs. Trinitarianism is as follows:
1. Oneness - God is One, but not a plurality of three persons, and that the one God is Jesus Christ. In other words, God is absolutely one with no distinction of persons (Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20) because Jesus Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead incarnate (John 20:28; Colossians 2:9). The Father, the Son (Word) and the Holy Spirit are only three manifestations or modes or titles that Jesus manifests Himself as. I have read elsewhere that Oneness believers do not believe God is limited to these three manifestaions, though.
2. Trinitarianism - The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. But, the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Sprit is not the Father and the Son. These three in the Godhead are not three Gods, but are One, of one substance, power, and eternity.
The word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture and has been defined as a mystery. For the finite mind to fully understand He who is infinite is really an impossibility. God is beyond anything we can comprehend, but upon close examination, the Scriptures do indicate that God is three in One, not three Gods. In other words, the Scriptures speak of God as the Father, but also as the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet, the three are One. So, the word Trinity is not in Scripture, but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are a reality in the word. It is interpreting these terms and how they relate to the One God that confusion arises causing false doctrines concerning the Trinity to be taught.
Reviving Heresies Of The Past
In the middle of the third century, Sabellius was excommunicated and declared a heretic because of proposing the idea that there was only one "person" in the Godhead manifesting himself in different offices: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This heresy was named Sabellianism (and later modalism) after him, though the heretical doctrine did not last for very long.
Gregory the Wonder-worker was one who spoke out against Sabellianism:
"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person] . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons--namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).
"But if they say, 'How can there be three Persons, and how but one Divinity?' we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . There is one substance in the Trinity" (ibid., 14).
Others also spoke out against Sabellius:
Council of Rome
"We anathematize those also who follow the error of Sabellius in saying that the same one is both Father and Son" (Tome of Pope Damasus, canon 2 [A.D. 382]).
Fulgence of Ruspe
"See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he [Christ] says, `The Father and I, we are one' [John 10:30]. He teaches us that `one' refers to their nature and `we are' to their persons. In like manner it is said, `There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one' [1John 5:7]. Let Sabellius hear 'we are,' let him hear 'three,' and let him believe that there are three Persons" (The Trinity 4:1 [A.D. 513]).
Novatian
". . . And thus by such as these, as we have said, the sacrilegious heresy of Sabellius is embodied. Since Christ is believed to be not the Son, but the Father; since by them He is asserted to be in strictness a bare man, in a new manner, by those, again, Christ is proved to be God the Father Almighty" (A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity, Chapter 12).
Modalism Resurfaced In 1913
Modalism resurfaced in the twentieth century in the American Holiness movement, later infiltrating Pentecostal Trinitarian believers. In a revival meeting in Arroyo Seco, California (Los Angeles) on April 15, 1913, R.E. McAlister began baptizing converts in the name of Jesus, rather than by the command in Matthew 28:19:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
He did so saying that Acts 2:38 was the fulfilling of the command given in Matthew 28 because Jesus was not the unique Son of God, distinct from the Father, but the final expression of God, who was one "person" manifesting in three different offices.
Also at this meeting was evangleist Frank Ewart (among hundreds of preachers attending), who would begin preaching the same message a few years later. From here, the message moved into Pentecostal churches, the Assemblies of God included. But, it was here that the message was rejected and the orthodox teaching on the Trinity upheld. This stand, however, did not stop the Oneness doctrine to continue its advancement through Pentecostal circles.
The Early Church Fathers In Support Of The Triunity of God
Justin Martyr Justin was a writer around the end of the first century. His first volumous work (Justin's First Apology) was a massive defense of Christianity written to the pagan Romans, in an attempt to explain Christianity and distinguish it from the pagan religions and Judiasm. Here are a couple of interresting quotes. Justin also wrote a second Apology, as well as a lengthy dialogue with a Jew named Trypho.
The second quote below is very revealing, since Justin clearly distinguishes Jesus from the Father, and indicates that it was the Son who appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Furthermore, he condemns the Jews for NOT distinguishing between the Father and the Son! Hardly appropriate if Justin believed "oneness" (Warner):
"...Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed" (First Apology 13:5-6, Christians Serve God Rationally [A.D. 151]).
And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spake to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know Me, and My people do not understand.” And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him.” Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, “He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me.” From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, “And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.” And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, “And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, “Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me.” And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.” The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, “I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers,” this signified that they, even though dead, are let in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote" (Chapter 63, How God Appeared To Moses).
Tertullian
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . this rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).
Tertullian
"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).
Origen
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the Being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a Being outside himself, so that there were a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).
"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words `when' and `never' are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity" (ibid.)
Novatian
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).
Pope Dionysius
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Ignatius
Here is an excerpt from Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians you might find interresting, where he is describing some of the heritics.
"For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." (Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. VI).
Ignatius is giving a quick summary of some of the heresies about Christ. Notice the trinitarian formula, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." In the underlined section above, he gives three separate heresies. First, those who say Jesus was just a man. Second, those who say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the same person. (like Noetus, Praxeas, Saballus). And thirdly, the Gnostics (like Marcion, Valentinus, Ptolemaus) who claimed that the creator god (YHVH) of the Old Testament was not the same God as the "Father" in the NT.
|
|
|
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3836 is a reply to message #3833] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 15:40 |
|
william
Messages: 1466
Registered: January 2006 |
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
Hi Grandom,
Let me see if I understand you here...
1. You believe 'oneness' to be heresy.
2. You are supporting this belief by selectively quoting early Church fathers and later popes.
3. Therefore those who believe 'oneness' doctrine are anti-christian. (You said you supported Gary's proposition.)
Or, is it:
1. You believe 'oneness' to be heresy.
2. You base this on the Scriptures, without regard as to what others in Church history taught.
3. Those that do not have an understanding about this doctrine are not just mixed up in their understanding, but are literally, by definition, not Christian.
This of course would mean that there were a lot of folks who thought they were Christians but were in fact heretics assuming they didn't have a clear understanding concerning the Godhead before a definitive answer was handed down by the councils.
Or is it something else?
Blessings,
William
[Updated on: Mon, 20 October 2008 15:41]
I want to believe!
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3849 is a reply to message #3837] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 16:53 |
james
Messages: 2142
Registered: April 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL |
Senior Member |
|
|
Just thinking out loud here concerning Michael. If 'oneness' is heresy, and it appears that more and more are deciding it is, or maybe more correctly stated, are voicing their opinion that it is. What if Michael weren't propagating this doctrine/heresy, but just believed it to be true, would this be less serious than 'teaching' it. imo it would, maybe that would fit in the 'just mixed up' bag, vs someone, Michael, preaching/teaching it to others. Also another thought, or question; does teaching this mean he's demon possessed?
I haven't encounter a 'oneness' believer before, to the best of my knowledge, unless they just never expressed their beliefs.
“But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,”
|
|
|
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3852 is a reply to message #3823] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 17:18 |
|
william
Messages: 1466
Registered: January 2006 |
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
| Hombre wrote on Mon, 20 October 2008 11:19 |
I would like to agree with you that Michael is mixed-up.
What I find difficult to palate is how someone can alter the doctrine of the godhead and NOT be by definition ' a heretic'.
I am not clear as to why HEF would teach the definition of heresy as that which deviates from the 'generally accepted Christian' doctrine of God, and then make an exclusion for 'oneness' doctrine. It is abundantly clear to me, that 'oneness' doctrine brings a multitude of other issues to play, just from seeing what has been presented in this thread, without speculating what else might one might fall prey to ( Branham ).
Can you point me to as to why HEF would say such a thing, and why it would be prudent to follow him in this 'judgment' and yet not in others?
If 'oneness' is NOT a heresy by definition, then how much of the doctrine of the Godhead needs to be altered for one to qualify as such?
|
Let me see if I can explain why HEF made the distinction (my own interpretation of course...).
Here is the quote from 2Jn:
2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
The heresy that John was dealing with was Gnosticism which taught that Jesus did not really come in the 'flesh'. I don't think 'oneness' people teach this. Secondly, the doctrine of the trinity was not developed at this early stage. At the very least, if it was understood by the early Church, it wasn't formulated as clearly as later theologians would make it. As far as we know there may been a lot of people who were not clear on this particular point... this is only speculation on my part.
Thirdly, HEF stressed that it was belief in the substitutionary aspects of Jesus' work as being the standard whereby one was in or out of the faith. I don't think 'oneness' people are any more prone to error on this crucial point than 'trinitarians'. Being wrong on this issue has eternal consequences and should be viewed as heretical.
Having said that, a good discussion concerning the 'doctrine of Christ' might be in order!
Denying that Jesus was/is the eternal Son of God can have eternal ramifications. Again, it is the substitutionary aspects of the atonement that suffer when one errs on this particular point.
In summary, I think that the label (heresy), if it is to be applied to someone, it should be applied when there is a danger of perverting the atonement, which has eternal consequences. This is the way that I believe that HEF applied the term.
Clear as mud?
Blessings,
William
I want to believe!
|
|
| |
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3867 is a reply to message #3857] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 22:16 |
JRS
Messages: 36
Registered: December 2007
Location: Northern ILL. |
Member |
|
|
Well put Hombre – yes the simplicity!
I have been following this discourse of the “Oneness” of the God Head. It seems as though we all agree that there is only ONE GOD. I would have to say that Michael uses a boat load of scriptures to validate his view yet I cannot fully agree with what He is saying. I have never personally encountered this before and to actually classify it and put a finger on it as being heresy, I have been asking myself the question – What could be the ramifications of this belief?
Michael asked the questions in response to Alan –
| Michael The Disciple wrote on Sat, 18 October 2008 16:37 |
| Alanbook wrote on Sat, 18 October 2008 15:28 |
| Quote: |
Michael The Disciple wrote
If he is the God of the Universe what about the other two? After all there are separate and distinct persons of God themselves.
Would it be more accurate to say ONE OF the persons of God came and took flesh?
In my view it was simply GOD who was manifest in flesh.
|
Then who in the world was speaking from heaven and said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
"Some person was speaking about another person".
Why did not God say from heaven, Hear I am listen to me???????
Jesus said I and my Father are one, Why not say I am God the father. Its because the person Jesus was speaking about the person His Father. They were both one.
We see all through the New Testament, Jesus praying to the Father, We see the Father speaking out about His son Jesus. Its not like its an isolated case here.
|
Thank you for bringing this up. I have actually been addressing it all along but let me try from this angle.
The whole discussion from my side comes to how many persons are God? For you to inject the question about the Father talking to Jesus from Heaven is just where I want to go.
Was this a case of God from Heaven talking to someone who was also God on the Earth?
If so Oneness doctrine is defeated. Finished. That means there are two Gods!
I repeat. If one person who is God says anything to another person who is God that is the absolute proof there are two Gods!
Is that what happened when YHWH spoke to Yeshua?
Or was it that the one God spoke out of Heaven to his Son who WAS A MAN?
Ah now theres an idea. Yeshua was here on Earth as a MAN.
Does God need to pray?
Does God need to be baptized in water?
Does God need to have the Holy Spirit come upon him?
Does God get hungry or thirsty?
When Yeshua prayed to his Father he PRAYED BECAUSE HE WAS A MAN!
It was NOT one person of God praying to another person of God.
It was a man praying to God. And it was God speaking to a man.
That is the Father Son relationship. There is a Father. There is a Son.
Know and understand that Yeshua is both God and man.
Note what he told Nicodemus.
13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3:13
Yeshua told Nicodemus altho I am standing here on Earth at this very moment I am existing in Heaven!
Yeshua is both God and man. This is the perfect example of how it works. This is the awesome revelation of the mystery of Christ.
While Yeshua was down here teaching, healing, loving and being our example at the same time in another realm of being he was living in Heaven!
Here he was tired, hungry and sleepy at times. There he was receiving the worship of hundreds of millions of Angels. He was in charge of everything that was happening on every Planet in the Galaxies!
And THAT again is the issue.
|
Then with his post today –
| Michael The Disciple wrote on Mon, 20 October 2008 12:15 |
This is a false misleading definition. Oneness as I teach it does account for distinction of persons. The distinction being between One God and man Christ Jesus. What I deny is distinctions between three divine persons each one of them named YHWH. No such thing exists in scripture so it is easily exposed as error.
|
I can see why there would be an acceptance of this and rejection in earlier writings.
The term Trinity can be a misleading term and probably should be stated as the “Triune” nature of God. One God with 3 manifestations as Hombre brought forth.
The issue as I see – The only explanation and conclusion one can draw is that when God spoke from Heaven then Jesus was 100% man and not God at these times. With this train of thought one could draw the conclusion that man has the ability to overcome sin in his own life. We know where this is headed.
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
And in the next verse.
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
It does go on (we know the verses that follow) yet Paul wrote this immediately following.
For any man to say he has a full understanding of the God Head with his finite understanding is to say that Paul was wrong here in speaking about a mystery and I Cor 13: 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
JRS
|
|
|
| Re: My Attraction To Faith Assembly [message #3870 is a reply to message #3857] |
Tue, 21 October 2008 00:52 |
JWBTI
Messages: 253
Registered: March 2007
Location: Ohio |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Hombre wrote on Mon, 20 October 2008 16:39 |
| moulder wrote on Mon, 20 October 2008 16:16 |
I'm now at a loss to explain HEF's reluctance to place 'oneness' in that category... I am sure I didn't imagine his words on this issue.
|
I like simplicity...or as someone else puts it:
'Brevity is the soul of wit'.
I like you, find it difficult at times to place complex thoughts into an easy to understand package. Sometimes, I think we can confuse rather than enlighten through our 'much speaking'.
...with reference to HEFs reluctance, I have no idea, and I don't remember him on that topic.
|
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
William an Hombre
I dont have the tape but I got this from the Book !
Exploring Biblical Theology:
Hobart Freeman
The Works of the Holy Spirit:
Pg 150
When speaking of the works of the Holy Spirit,one should avoid the error of dividing Gods activity into dispensations to such an extreme that it borders on Sabellianism or the
“Oneness error”. This heresy,which confronted the early church and is still present today,
Brother Freeman seems to say: Error=Heresy
Ron
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 19 11:51:34 UTC 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01034 seconds
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
E-mail to friend 
At least you are not alone
