Turretinfan Out right lied(with a great sin against God in doing so)on the Iron sharpens iron program. Camping Is not Oneness(or what you falsely name as "Modalism") a name trinity folks have given ancient Oneness people for their use of the term "Mode" in describing God's existence in the incarnation. Again this is a lie as No Oneness teaches God is "three persons" as does Camping He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine
When Dr. White debated Camping, did not Dr. White raise these issues? If Camping disagrees with Dr. White's assessment, why would Camping not say something? I know if I were in a public debate and my opponent charged me with the most basic heresy as to the nature of God, I would be saying something to correct such a charge.
I don't recall Camping ever doing so. Perhaps we should review the debate to be certain.
At the end of the discussion you can clearly hear camping say God is "three persons" I listened very Closely and I am getting tired of James Whites lying! He does not seem to care that he blatantly sins against God But I do.
I recall how much you exploded when Dr. White used the term "Unitarian" to describe you (because, apparently, you wish to have that considered as a different heresy), and now you seem to be exploding because you feel that the term "modalism" should be applied only to your particular heresy.
I didn't call him a Oneness Pentecostal - and if I did, I would be wrong to do so. His theology is more orthodox than that.
TF,You are being dishonest! Both of those terms(Modalist's and Unitarain's) you use for Oneness were given to Oneness folks by Trinitarian's!
We do not use either term. But you do dishonestly teach folks that is what we are! You tried to lump us with the "Unitarians" By using that term who happen to not believe that Jesus is God. We do!
You have been telling everyone Oneness are "Modalist's" because of the use of a descriptive term(mode) ancient Oneness used for God in the incarnation.
Now you want to dishonestly distance yourself from Harold Camping Because he is of your fellow Reformed teachers that does not teach your trinity in the way you like!
The fact of the matter is; Camping is not Oneness whom you term Modalist. You say he is because he says Jesus is the Father that does not make anyone Oneness! especially when they say;" God is three persons." Stop with your dishonesty! he could very well be termed a trinitarain with your shallow reasoning if you are only taking half of what he says to determine what he is.
My group is not is not "Modalist" at all TF as we reject the name you have given us and your dishonesty and lying is seen from 1oo miles away! Again, Camping is more trinitarian than Oneness. but since you are picking only one part of his confession you choose that which is farthest away from your ilk to distance yourself, but that does not work since he is Reformed...LOL!
I would not think you would not have a comeback Because my arguments was "inimitable"! Glad I could make you laugh though. but was serious as a heart attack.
Oh I am serious as a heart attack! but it seems you are not. Thus my LOL(Laughing at you) You are still trying to push your nonsense that Camping was Oneness(Or what you term as Modalist.) You are hiding in plain sight. Camping Taught Reformed Doctrine and God is three persons there is no way for him to be Modalist! Pure dishonesty on your(AOMIN) part!
Oh Please? The term anyhow in the way you impose your definition of "person" for God upon scripture is not found anywhere in any passage of scripture. You argue from silence.
I could care less How he uses that un-scriptural definition for God. What matters is that he said it, just like you would... No Oneness would even allude to such nonsense.
Let me ask you a question? When I use the term person what determines if I am speaking of God or men? Your made up term your rules you cannot do that with God's word.
If there was anyone who still thought that you were seriously concerned that Camping had been misrepresented, I think they see from your response above that such a thought was mistaken.
Why don't you deal with what was stated instead of running away.Why would waste my time with 15 posts if I were not concerned with your out right lies and deceit .
Harold Camping is a Reformed teacher who does not teach your version of the trinity the way in which you like so you dishonestly pawn him off...
He cannot teach Oneness or what you have termed Modalism with his "three persons of God"..
He definitely teaches the doctrine of the trinity but Just a little differently than you.
Oh, I was never concerned at all that "Camping was misrepresented"!
You are trying to Lump him with Oneness by lying and saying he is a "Modalist" A term Trinitarian's have named contemporary and ancient Oneness. I concerned you have lied on God's people (Christian's, Oneness believers)
Here is one for ya? "Persons die", God does not! when I use the term person am I speaking of God or men?
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Imagine that? TF and the Reformed to whom he represents is playing it safe?? Guess what TF? I also believe (Acts 20:28.) Jesus was given the Spirit by no measure(John 20:23)
How many beings do you have? Is Jesus a new being? Is he a real human being?( Or A hybrid New species?) Or was he made both Lord and Christ like (Acts 2:36) states because his humanity had a beginning. there was a real distinction that you do not make and only Oneness makes! we do not have God Dying! You want to debate that? Bring it on! I know what I believe and I can defend it..
Once more, stop with your trying to lump one of your own Reformed us.
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
It does not help you much to throw out a prophetic passage of the coming son in the incarnation's name and that of the Father that would be the same name and the father is that which incarnated the real man or son (John 14:10 KJB) The Father that dwelleth in me(The son) He doeth the works. Read (Zechariah 14:90 In that day there shall be one LORD and his name One("That day" was the incarnation.)
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
"The form of the fourth is LIKE the son of God" is not saying; "it is the son of God".
"The son of God" refers to the flesh. that born of Mary(Math.1:19-20) Deny that or tell us God has two sons one flesh, and One in name only as spirit?
The son of man is That which God referred to in the plural pronouns and was included in creation when God said: "let us make man in image after our likeness" he was referring to the coming incarnation( Romans 5:14)Tell us so as one of the single greatest creation passages that exist in scripture! (Adam) who was the figure of him that was to come. Meaning he was not back there! We have a clear passage in the New testament tell us Jesus was not there!
The Daniel passage of the four men in the fire was also prophetic and alluding to the time of the coming incarnation.
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
What are you trying to do TurretinFan? It is not me versus the scriptures! I love everyone of these passages you have given... what not a one of them has said though is anything about your "God the son" or the false doctrine of the "trinity."
Let me remind you, we were speaking of your dishonesty in lying about the Reformed trinitarian *Harold Camping* and how you were trying to make him Oneness with his three persons of God.
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
TurretinFan writes: Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
First of all, Jesus slain flesh(Not "god the son")purchased our right to have his spirit in our Hearts. or sending it too us from the Father by buying it for us.
We do not see "three persons" from the above passage, we see three ways in which God deals with mankind that absolutely had to be!
First, as God who gives grace in choosing mankind through election in him not as individuals willy nilly bypassing preaching and grace apart from our response.
Second, as slain flesh that was sacrificed to atone the sins of mankind that a holy God as spirit could not do as that holy spirit(God the Father's title in dealing with man) was not our kinsmen redeemer, we needed our own kind, but with no sin. If he could then he should have done it immediately.
Third, God as Holy lawgiver would be in us.
For the Holy Ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was not yet Glorified (or slain in his flesh. John 7:38-39)
By man came sin and by man came also the resurrection from the dead.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son could not purchase anything for us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer.
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.(Acts 2:36)
So that now, the Lord is that spirit (2nd Cor. 3:17)
He was the first comforter in the flesh and would Be the other Comforter in the spirit.
That He might abide with you Forever even the spirit of truth: Whom the world cannot receive,because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.: BUT YOU KNOW HIM: FOR HE DWELLETH WITH YOU (NOW IN FLESH) AND SHALL BE IN YOU.(AS SPIRIT) I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless(or as Fatherless Orphans),I(Jesus) will come to you.(As the father or Spirit of God)(John 14:17-18)
(1st. Cor.15:45-46) The Last man Adam(Jesus) was made the quickening (Life giving) Spirit. because his humanity had a beginning.
How-be-it that was not first which was spirtual?(Adam came before Jesus) But that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.(God came to us as Jesus in the incarnation) or the second man. from Robert Sabin: "He shall not speak of himself," is a common Johanine phrase, most often applied to Jesus Christ as a sort of hallmark of his ministry. It was Jesus while on earth who did "not speak of himself," who in all things that he spoke attributed his words to an enabler, to the Father, who enabled him to speak and gave him the words".
(John 14:10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether I speak God, or WHETHER I SPEAK OF MYSELF.
John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I AM NOT COME OF MYSELF, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF MYSELF; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jesus did not even know the time of his own second coming but the Father Only(Mark 13:32) Because the Father only was that divine one spirit that knew all things and gave his spirit to the son by no measure(John 3:34) and made him the one true God and spirit but did not reveal all things to the limited in knowledge real man.
Psa 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Blogger Turretinfan said... Manuel then: "He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine."
Manuel now: "Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian."
Manuel: That is what this whole thing is about! I have been trying to get you stop with your nonsense about calling Harold Camping Oneness or what you also term as Modalist. You would not do that, you continued to dishonestly call him a Modalist to distance yourself! I was giving you a taste of your own medicine!
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Manuel: Of Course the father is greater that the son! The father Only knew the time of the second coming and not the son.(Mark 13:32) The father was the deity that Incarnated the son and did the works and miracles(John 14:10) The son could do no works or miracles of Himself(John 5:30)
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
(John 5:30) I can of mine ownself(as the son of God) DO NOTHING!
The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works(John 14:10)
Mark 13:32 But that day and that hour knoweth no man,no not the Angels which are in heaven,neither the son, but the Father.
"Son of God" does not mean: deity as God the son and they are not inter-changable terms! God the son does not exist and neither does the son of God as either a separate or a distinct person of God.. You add that false doctrine to scripture "son of God" is that which includes God the Father as his Deity in the incarnation.
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:
1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
TurretinFan:"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:
1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one".
Mlculwell: Come on at least try? Anybody can give passages they think that are on their side with no commentary. There are two reasons you do this 1.) is to play it safe. 2.) Is to make it look as though you have scripture on your.
since I already know what you teach concerning these passages(Very much in error of Course) do not need for you to give me your commentary therefor making it look as though the truth of the scriptures are yours which is not the truth.... LOL!
Anyhow neither of those passages are trinitarian. (1st John 5:7) is supposed to be suspect for authenticity but I do not need that argument as it does no harm to the truth of God's word or his Oneness!
Once again, TF dishonestly attempts to pawn Harold camping off on Oneness folks by calling him a "Modalist"(A name that Trinitarian's have given Oneness.) Because of half of his confession that: "Jesus was the Father." but somehow conveniently forgets about the other half of his confession: "that God is three persons." He ignores the Both quotes and takes the half that fits his need.
We already exposed the facts that (1) I fully agree that Mr. Camping is not Oneness and (2) you are not really interested in what Mr. Camping believes.
Why do you continue to slander?
Jeremiah 50:36 A sword is upon the liars; and they shall dote: a sword is upon her mighty men; and they shall be dismayed.
Sir, the Sword is Upon you and James White for your Lying, slanderous, dishonesty and I aim to expose the both of you..It was Mr. White that has put you up to it, starting with his debate with Camping! You have been trying to turn this around on us.
You dishonestly have been telling everyone Camping is a "Modalist" a name you have given both ancient and contemporary Oneness. It seems now, you have also added a new category and lump him in with us as Oneness(I do not want to hear you lie again about it!) You take part of what he has said and throw away what you do not need just like you do in scripture to come up with your false doctrines.
TF writes:"Ancient oneness? LOL! There were ancient unitarians, there were ancient modalists, but oneness pentacostalism there was not".
Yeah, Ancient Oneness! "Modalism" is a term you gave the ancient Oneness! Just because you deny the experience does not mean it did not exist or that it somehow cahnged over into your false doctrine.
We get our jaded history from their enemies who hated truth, Because of men through History who fell from truth.
You make a claim of men who also could be claimed of us, who made no "trinitarain confession" in history. History is not that which determines truth, the scriptures alone are.
LOL! You crack me up!~ Look at (Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your false doctrine and establishes mine By asking the following question! Paul Asks:"Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"? He did not ask; have you believed on Jesus? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) Belief that God gives you or otherwise(*Rolling of eyes*) does not get you the Holy Ghost! It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know who they were) your false doctrine would have been understood!
"Ancient Modalists" get a clue man. There were only ancient Modalists because that is what you named them like you falsely named God a "trinity"! You sir continue in your lies and deceit.
Manuel: Have you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?
TF Writes:"Manuel: Have you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?"
What I have noticed is that what you are trying to tell everyone and pull off are two different things!
Ask Anyone what a so called "Modalist" is? They will then refer to us,(Oneness Ancient and contemporary) not the New designation you have given Harold Camping to try and distance yourself pull your dishonest Okie Doke!
You do not give up and neither do I! Once more, you have taken half of his quote where states: "Jesus is the Father." All the While ignoring where states: "God is three persons."
If half of His statement makes Him a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" then the Other half makes him a Trinitarain but that is as ridiculous as what you are trying to do!
You may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God. I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God. That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
You may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God."
mlculwell: I was not shocked as Know what you are doing. Which is distancing yourself from someone who is clearly Trinitarain otherwise you would not be trying so hard.
TF: "I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God."
mlculwell: If you are somehow basing that from half of what he said which your clearly are then "The appropriate label to describe his errant view of God." Could just as well be Trinitarain. It is the most errant view of God.
TF:"That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
mlculwell: I believe the label also belongs to you! "Irrationality" would be your thinking, as you are the one who takes half of what he says and makes him a "Modalist" when he said: "God is three persons." No Oneness or who you term "Modalist" would ever say such thing!
If he would Denonunce the "three persons of God" and stop with his date setting Etc. we Might take him into our fold..LOL!
TF:"Let me ask you bluntly: have you taken the position that the gift of tongues is not necessary for salvation"?
mlculwell: Yeah, I can tell you without batting an eye, there is not Oneness person anywhere that believes the "GIFT OF TONGUES is necessary for salvation!" LOL!
This shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Just like every other Reformed person I speak with.
TF:"So you are quibbling over the term "gift of tongues" then? What would you call it instead"?
mlculwell: Yeah, of course I am quibbling over "the gift of tongues"! This tells me much, for one thing you do not have any understanding of scripture and I will be spending my time trying to teach you something you will not accept.
This started out about you dishonestly, trying to somehow connect Harold Camping to the Oneness view, or to those you term "Modalist."
That was not working well so then you wanted to go toe to toe concerning our two views of God(Trinity Versus Oneness.)
Now you want to talk about receiving of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your doctrine By asking the following question! "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"?
Once more he did not ask; "have you believed on Jesus"? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know whom they were) your doctrine would have been understood and he would not have asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed!
They then spoke in tongues as evidence they received the spirit(Acts 19:6) They spoke in tongues first as that evidence(Not as the gift of tongues) there was no interpretation in (Acts 2:4) or in (Acts 11:15 it fell on Cornelius household as on us(the 120 not just the twelve) in the begging which referred to Acts 10:46)
in (Acts 19:6) This is not the gift of tongues! This is the gift of the spirit!(the Holy Ghost)
There are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased...
Please give the passage that says it changed to silent(Mental assent "faith") especially when Paul refutes that doctrine in Acts 19:2 with his question... For sure reception is by faith but not your but not your version of it which bypasses Grace, faith, the blood and preaching.
So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
TF writes:"So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
mlculwell:What difference does that make?
Historical figures do not determine my doctrine unless those historical figures are the writers of the NT and the Lord Jesus Christ(The Author.)
where am I told in scripture (alone) to look to historical figures? What if those historical figures (in the majority) were wrong? Am I going to be wrong by lining up with Jesus and those writers of the NT?(John 17:17)
I do not concern my self with those historical writers, not even the Ancient Oneness who were referred to by their enemies. (What good would that do anyhow?) I do not believe their enemies ever ever told the truth about them or their doctrines and we only get a small taste of what they were about.
TF:(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
mlculwell: I see folks who believed like me from history but I take that with a grain of salt. If there were small groups throughout each century that were not in the majority, either in your view or in mine it proves nothing one way or the other for either of us.
TF: N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
mlculwell: I do believe there were anceint folks Sabelius, Praxeas, Noetus.
Where did Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, ever describe God as a Trinity or as three persons? Can you give me the quote?
There were many groups through out history that believed the biblical infilling of the spirit but that is nothing to the biblical witness.
Whatever their experience is between them and their and God and they are all long Gone but for sure today we remain and we have the truth of His word and it should not and cannot be ignored!
Allow me to make this a little simpler for you? I believe all those historical figures (You bring up and the ones I do) and the creeds, hold about as much weight toward our salvation as the Book of Mormon. So in my view that holds zero weight toward anything we are discussing.
No, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks. This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so. Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now.
You should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life.
TF:"No, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks".
mlculwell:Once more: "Knowing" or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. )
TF: "This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so".
mlculwell: You are the One contradicting yourself! Oneness has to do with the belief in Monotheism (One God, Jesus being that One God and a denial of three persons) LOL!
I can find all kinds of beliefs from so called ancient folks you would consider to be trinitarain's you would have no part of, some even recanted and became Arian.
"Modalism" as I have explained numerous times now, was a name that was given to us by you and the Enemies of the ancient Oneness. The term "Oneness" has to do with our belief in One God. Jesus being that One God! You have given us the name "Modalist"
You try and wrangle all these terms and now you are wrangling with a term you have given us, so you can distance yourself from your Brother Camping.
Again you lie and are dishonest. I want no part of a group that spends all their time lying and hiding truth and facts!(That would be you and Dr. White) That fact is obvious to me from this conversation with your folks.
TF:It does not contradict anything! Ancient Oneness does
Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now".
mlculwell; Then don't you ever call us a "Modalist" again! What have I been arguing with you guys about all this time? Oneness is a belief of Jesus being the One God and a flat out denial of the un-scriptural doctrine of "three persons of God." The folks of ancient times fit that description perfectly you just happened to take their term "mode" and call them "Modalists" but they were definitely Oneness! You are trying so hard.
Where did Harold Camping ever say: "there were three Modes of being" I guess that makes you a Modalist then! He(Camping) said: "God was/is three persons." Be consistent!
Again, I don't want to hear you, or anyone else use it for Oneness folks ever again. The fact is, you have spent so much time in calling us the (so called) ancient heresy of "Modalism"(Which does not exist) trying to get your folks to keep away from us in your lying to them about the jaded history, you do not know what right or wrong is!
The term "Mode" was used in describing God in his dealings with mankind by ancient and some contemporary Oneness folks. You grabbed onto that and used that term!
I am going to post your dishonesty on my blog for all to see your wrangling over this
TF:"You should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life".
mlculwell: It is you that should repent of all of your false doctrines and your lying! Your Calvinism does not allow for that nor does it do any good. LOL!
Manuel wrote: "'Knowing' or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. ) "
Yet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims. And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
TF:Yet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
mlculwell: That is exactly what I am not doing!
How, and why, would I appeal to historical figures outside the writers of the NT when I do not believe that it has any relevance to truth what soever? (I have been clear.)
It does no good when you do it, or anyone else. I think you would like to make it about that nonsense so that you can continue in your false arguments from history. Sorry I am not biting..LOL!
TF:Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims.
mlculwell: I have made none. The only thing I have done, is pointed to ancient Oneness folks. You are trying to make this about *tongues* in history(My appeal is to scripture alone.)
You have no bible for your false doctrine of the trinity(No Apostle taught it!) So you must appeal to men outside the NT to try and argue.
You and the Muslims teach false doctrine. You at least teach Jesus is God and the Grace of God albeit a very bad understanding of both.
Your doctrine of God is flat out polytheism. (There is no way around it when you are put on the spot) Even James White revealed it on His DL program concerning his view of the pre-incarnate God the son concerning (Philippians 2:6) where he had God equal to God. You can say what you like about the Muslim's being wrong as they are wrong but we are Monotheists and believe Jesus is the One real God, and at the same time the one real sinless man.(Not a hybrid mix)
TF: And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
mlculwell: LOL! Why would you ask me to do something you do not do nor even believe you can do?
I am sure you saying that looks pretty Good in front of all your Reformed Folks(He sure told him) Your real belief Bypasses grace preaching and the blood and you were chosen willy nilly in spite of all that, even repentance.. Preaching is no good, to you that is... LOL!
Oh Yeah, Harold camping belongs to reformed crowd as he Believes Calvinism and *God is three persons* there is not a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" anywhere that would make such an outrageous confession. It amazes how you folks can blatantly lie and twist things. i cannot believe anything you say anymore.
You have not addressed anything. I have also been part of this discussion and you continue to lie and twist things and then call me a "slanderer"? Against your false doctrines and untruths? LOL!
Manuel, your dishonesty knows no bounds. The words from your heart show how unclean you are (Matthew 15:16-20; Mark 7:20-23) and God hates your lying tongue (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Carl, you might better listen to the discussion Between James White and Harold Camping who claims God is three persons so it is James White who is lying!
If you have not listened then you should not bare false witness and jump to conclusions. You cannot call me dishonest if you have not listened...
You sound like Beukboom from the Carm-boards. If you are, then I can understand your claims, as you blindly defend your defenders, who are not very good at defending your doctrine.
Manuel, you have a long history of lying and misrepresenting events so it's highly likely you are being less than truthful here. You've proven yourself most untrustworthy and clearly a heretic who deceives like his father. You're habitually dishonest, lacking in self-control and devoid of Godly grace. Anyone familiar with you concur regarding your untrustworthiness.
Turretinfan Out right lied(with a great sin against God in doing so)on the Iron sharpens iron program. Camping Is not Oneness(or what you falsely name as "Modalism") a name trinity folks have given ancient Oneness people for their use of the term "Mode" in describing God's existence in the incarnation. Again this is a lie as No Oneness teaches God is "three persons" as does Camping He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine
ReplyDeleteManuel Culwell
http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteWhen Dr. White debated Camping, did not Dr. White raise these issues? If Camping disagrees with Dr. White's assessment, why would Camping not say something? I know if I were in a public debate and my opponent charged me with the most basic heresy as to the nature of God, I would be saying something to correct such a charge.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall Camping ever doing so. Perhaps we should review the debate to be certain.
At the end of the discussion you can clearly hear camping say God is "three persons" I listened very Closely and I am getting tired of James Whites lying! He does not seem to care that he blatantly sins against God But I do.
ReplyDeleteManuel:
ReplyDeleteI recall how much you exploded when Dr. White used the term "Unitarian" to describe you (because, apparently, you wish to have that considered as a different heresy), and now you seem to be exploding because you feel that the term "modalism" should be applied only to your particular heresy.
I didn't call him a Oneness Pentecostal - and if I did, I would be wrong to do so. His theology is more orthodox than that.
-TurretinFan
TF,You are being dishonest! Both of those terms(Modalist's and Unitarain's) you use for Oneness were given to Oneness folks by Trinitarian's!
ReplyDeleteWe do not use either term. But you do dishonestly teach folks that is what we are! You tried to lump us with the "Unitarians" By using that term who happen to not believe that Jesus is God. We do!
You have been telling everyone Oneness are "Modalist's" because of the use of a descriptive term(mode) ancient Oneness used for God in the incarnation.
Now you want to dishonestly distance yourself from Harold Camping Because he is of your fellow Reformed teachers that does not teach your trinity in the way you like!
The fact of the matter is; Camping is not Oneness whom you term Modalist. You say he is because he says Jesus is the Father that does not make anyone Oneness! especially when they say;" God is three persons." Stop with your dishonesty! he could very well be termed a trinitarain with your shallow reasoning if you are only taking half of what he says to determine what he is.
Manuel:
ReplyDeleteYour group is not the only modalistic group out there. I realize that may serve as a certain amount of rain on your parade, but c'est la vie.
-TurretinFan
My group is not is not "Modalist" at all TF as we reject the name you have given us and your dishonesty and lying is seen from 1oo miles away! Again, Camping is more trinitarian than Oneness. but since you are picking only one part of his confession you choose that which is farthest away from your ilk to distance yourself, but that does not work since he is Reformed...LOL!
ReplyDeleteROFL Manuel. You are inimitable.
ReplyDeleteI would not think you would not have a comeback Because
ReplyDeletemy arguments was "inimitable"! Glad I could make you laugh though. but was serious as a heart attack.
Whoops double negatives...
ReplyDeleteOne rarely ends "serious as a heart attack" comments with "LOL"
ReplyDeleteOh I am serious as a heart attack! but it seems you are not. Thus my LOL(Laughing at you) You are still trying to push your nonsense that Camping was Oneness(Or what you term as Modalist.) You are hiding in plain sight. Camping Taught Reformed Doctrine and God is three persons there is no way for him to be Modalist! Pure dishonesty on your(AOMIN) part!
ReplyDeleteManuel:
ReplyDeleteAre you under the impression that Camping uses the term "persons" in the standard Trinitarian sense?
-TurretinFan
Oh Please? The term anyhow in the way you impose your definition of "person" for God upon scripture is not found anywhere in any passage of scripture. You argue from silence.
ReplyDeleteI could care less How he uses that un-scriptural definition for God. What matters is that he said it, just like you would... No Oneness would even allude to such nonsense.
Let me ask you a question? When I use the term person what determines if I am speaking of God or men? Your made up term your rules you cannot do that with God's word.
Hasta La bye bye.
Manuel:
ReplyDeleteIf there was anyone who still thought that you were seriously concerned that Camping had been misrepresented, I think they see from your response above that such a thought was mistaken.
-TurretinFan
Why don't you deal with what was stated instead of running away.Why would waste my time with 15 posts if I were not concerned with your out right lies and deceit .
ReplyDeleteHarold Camping is a Reformed teacher who does not teach your version of the trinity the way in which you like so you dishonestly pawn him off...
He cannot teach Oneness or what you have termed Modalism with his "three persons of God"..
He definitely teaches the doctrine of the trinity but Just a little differently than you.
Oh, I was never concerned at all that "Camping was misrepresented"!
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to Lump him with Oneness by lying and saying he is a "Modalist" A term Trinitarian's have named contemporary and ancient Oneness. I concerned you have lied on God's people (Christian's, Oneness believers)
Here is one for ya? "Persons die", God does not! when I use the term person am I speaking of God or men?
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
ReplyDeleteImagine that? TF and the Reformed to whom he represents is playing it safe?? Guess what TF? I also believe (Acts 20:28.) Jesus was given the Spirit by no measure(John 20:23)
ReplyDeleteHow many beings do you have? Is Jesus a new being? Is he a real human being?( Or A hybrid New species?) Or was he made both Lord and Christ like (Acts 2:36) states because his humanity had a beginning. there was a real distinction that you do not make and only Oneness makes! we do not have God Dying! You want to debate that? Bring it on! I know what I believe and I can defend it..
Once more, stop with your trying to lump one of your own Reformed us.
I meant to put John 3:34 but wrongly wrote John 20:23.
ReplyDeletePro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
ReplyDeleteIt does not help you much to throw out a prophetic passage of the coming son in the incarnation's name and that of the Father that would be the same name and the father is that which incarnated the real man or son (John 14:10 KJB) The Father that dwelleth in me(The son) He doeth the works. Read (Zechariah 14:90 In that day there shall be one LORD and his name One("That day" was the incarnation.)
ReplyDeleteDan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
ReplyDelete"The form of the fourth is LIKE the son of God" is not saying; "it is the son of God".
ReplyDelete"The son of God" refers to the flesh. that born of Mary(Math.1:19-20) Deny that or tell us God has two sons one flesh, and One in name only as spirit?
The son of man is That which God referred to in the plural pronouns and was included in creation when God said: "let us make man in image after our likeness" he was referring to the coming incarnation( Romans 5:14)Tell us so as one of the single greatest creation passages that exist in scripture! (Adam) who was the figure of him that was to come. Meaning he was not back there! We have a clear passage in the New testament tell us Jesus was not there!
The Daniel passage of the four men in the fire was also prophetic and alluding to the time of the coming incarnation.
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
ReplyDeleteWhat are you trying to do TurretinFan? It is not me versus the scriptures! I love everyone of these passages you have given... what not a one of them has said though is anything about your "God the son" or the false doctrine of the "trinity."
ReplyDeleteLet me remind you, we were speaking of your dishonesty in lying about the Reformed trinitarian *Harold Camping* and how you were trying to make him Oneness with his three persons of God.
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
ReplyDeleteTurretinFan writes:
ReplyDeleteJoh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
First of all, Jesus slain flesh(Not "god the son")purchased our right to have his spirit in our Hearts. or sending it too us from the Father by buying it for us.
We do not see "three persons" from the above passage, we see three ways in which God deals with mankind that absolutely had to be!
First, as God who gives grace in choosing mankind through election in him not as individuals willy nilly bypassing preaching and grace apart from our response.
Second, as slain flesh that was sacrificed to atone the sins of mankind that a holy God as spirit could not do as that holy spirit(God the Father's title in dealing with man) was not our kinsmen redeemer, we needed our own kind, but with no sin. If he could then he should have done it immediately.
Third, God as Holy lawgiver would be in us.
For the Holy Ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was not yet Glorified (or slain in his flesh. John 7:38-39)
By man came sin and by man came also the resurrection from the dead.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son could not purchase anything for us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer.
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.(Acts 2:36)
So that now, the Lord is that spirit (2nd Cor. 3:17)
He was the first comforter in the flesh and would Be the other Comforter in the spirit.
That He might abide with you Forever even the spirit of truth: Whom the world cannot receive,because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.: BUT YOU KNOW HIM: FOR HE DWELLETH WITH YOU (NOW IN FLESH) AND SHALL BE IN YOU.(AS SPIRIT)
I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless(or as Fatherless Orphans),I(Jesus) will come to you.(As the father or Spirit of God)(John 14:17-18)
(1st. Cor.15:45-46) The Last man Adam(Jesus) was made the quickening (Life giving) Spirit. because his humanity had a beginning.
How-be-it that was not first which was spirtual?(Adam came before Jesus) But that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.(God came to us as Jesus in the incarnation) or the second man.
from Robert Sabin:
"He shall not speak of himself," is a common Johanine
phrase, most often applied to Jesus Christ as a sort of hallmark of
his ministry. It was Jesus while on earth who did "not speak of
himself," who in all things that he spoke attributed his words to an
enabler, to the Father, who enabled him to speak and gave him the words".
(John 14:10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me? the words that I speak unto you I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF: but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether I speak God, or WHETHER I SPEAK OF MYSELF.
John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both
know me, and ye know whence I am: and I AM NOT COME OF MYSELF, but he
that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him
not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He
that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day. 49 For I HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF MYSELF; but the Father which sent me,
he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jesus did not even know the time of his own second coming but the Father Only(Mark 13:32) Because the Father only was that divine one spirit that knew all things and gave his spirit to the son by no measure(John 3:34) and made him the one true God and spirit but did not reveal all things to the limited in knowledge real man.
Psa 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.
ReplyDeleteLOL! You better read Hebrews 9::17-24 again!
ReplyDeleteThen read Romans 10:13-17
Again, you bypass grace and say you are worthy by God choosing you willy nilly not in him but randomly as an individual not by the grace he has given.
Lest we forget, Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian.
ReplyDeleteManuel then: "He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine."
ReplyDeleteManuel now: "Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian."
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
ReplyDeleteBlogger Turretinfan said... Manuel then: "He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine."
ReplyDeleteManuel now: "Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian."
Manuel: That is what this whole thing is about! I have been trying to get you stop with your nonsense about calling Harold Camping Oneness or what you also term as Modalist. You would not do that, you continued to dishonestly call him a Modalist to distance yourself! I was giving you a taste of your own medicine!
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Manuel: Of Course the father is greater that the son! The father Only knew the time of the second coming and not the son.(Mark 13:32) The father was the deity that Incarnated the son and did the works and miracles(John 14:10) The son could do no works or miracles of Himself(John 5:30)
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
ReplyDeleteLuk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
ReplyDeleteLuk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
(John 5:30) I can of mine ownself(as the son of God) DO NOTHING!
The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works(John 14:10)
Mark 13:32 But that day and that hour knoweth no man,no not the Angels which are in heaven,neither the son, but the Father.
"Son of God" does not mean: deity as God the son and they are not inter-changable terms! God the son does not exist and neither does the son of God as either a separate or a distinct person of God.. You add that false doctrine to scripture "son of God" is that which includes God the Father as his Deity in the incarnation.
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:
ReplyDelete1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
TurretinFan:"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:
ReplyDelete1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one".
Mlculwell: Come on at least try? Anybody can give passages they think that are on their side with no commentary. There are two reasons you do this 1.) is to play it safe.
2.) Is to make it look as though you have scripture on your.
since I already know what you teach concerning these passages(Very much in error of Course) do not need for you to give me your commentary therefor making it look as though the truth of the scriptures are yours which is not the truth.... LOL!
Anyhow neither of those passages are trinitarian. (1st John 5:7) is supposed to be suspect for authenticity but I do not need that argument as it does no harm to the truth of God's word or his Oneness!
Once again, TF dishonestly attempts to pawn Harold camping off on Oneness folks by calling him a "Modalist"(A name that Trinitarian's have given Oneness.) Because of half of his confession that: "Jesus was the Father." but somehow conveniently forgets about the other half of his confession: "that God is three persons." He ignores the Both quotes and takes the half that fits his need.
ReplyDeleteMr. Culwell,
ReplyDeleteWe already exposed the facts that (1) I fully agree that Mr. Camping is not Oneness and (2) you are not really interested in what Mr. Camping believes.
Why do you continue to slander?
Jeremiah 50:36 A sword is upon the liars; and they shall dote: a sword is upon her mighty men; and they shall be dismayed.
Sir, the Sword is Upon you and James White for your Lying, slanderous, dishonesty and I aim to expose the both of you..It was Mr. White that has put you up to it, starting with his debate with Camping! You have been trying to turn this around on us.
ReplyDeleteYou dishonestly have been telling everyone Camping is a "Modalist" a name you have given both ancient and contemporary Oneness. It seems now, you have also added a new category and lump him in with us as Oneness(I do not want to hear you lie again about it!) You take part of what he has said and throw away what you do not need just like you do in scripture to come up with your false doctrines.
Ancient oneness? LOL! There were ancient unitarians, there were ancient modalists, but oneness pentacostalism there was not.
ReplyDeleteTF writes:"Ancient oneness? LOL! There were ancient unitarians, there were ancient modalists, but oneness pentacostalism there was not".
ReplyDeleteYeah, Ancient Oneness! "Modalism" is a term you gave the ancient Oneness! Just because you deny the experience does not mean it did not exist or that it somehow cahnged over into your false doctrine.
We get our jaded history from their enemies who hated truth, Because of men through History who fell from truth.
You make a claim of men who also could be claimed of us, who made no "trinitarain confession" in history. History is not that which determines truth, the scriptures alone are.
LOL! You crack me up!~ Look at (Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your false doctrine and establishes mine By asking the following question! Paul Asks:"Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"?
He did not ask; have you believed on Jesus? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) Belief that God gives you or otherwise(*Rolling of eyes*) does not get you the Holy Ghost! It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know who they were) your false doctrine would have been understood!
"Ancient Modalists" get a clue man. There were only ancient Modalists because that is what you named them like you falsely named God a "trinity"! You sir continue in your lies and deceit.
Manuel:
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?
-TurretinFan
TF Writes:"Manuel:
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?"
What I have noticed is that what you are trying to tell everyone and pull off are two different things!
Ask Anyone what a so called "Modalist" is? They will then refer to us,(Oneness Ancient and contemporary) not the New designation you have given Harold Camping to try and distance yourself pull your dishonest Okie Doke!
You do not give up and neither do I!
Once more, you have taken half of his quote where states: "Jesus is the Father." All the While ignoring where states: "God is three persons."
If half of His statement makes Him a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" then the Other half makes him a Trinitarain but that is as ridiculous as what you are trying to do!
Manuel:
ReplyDeleteYou may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God. I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God. That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
-TurretinFan
"Manuel:
ReplyDeleteYou may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God."
mlculwell: I was not shocked as Know what you are doing. Which is distancing yourself from someone who is clearly Trinitarain otherwise you would not be trying so hard.
TF: "I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God."
mlculwell: If you are somehow basing that from half of what he said which your clearly are then "The appropriate label to describe his errant view of God." Could just as well be Trinitarain. It is the most errant view of God.
TF:"That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
mlculwell: I believe the label also belongs to you! "Irrationality" would be your thinking, as you are the one who takes half of what he says and makes him a "Modalist" when he said: "God is three persons." No Oneness or who you term "Modalist" would ever say such thing!
If he would Denonunce the "three persons of God" and stop with his date setting Etc. we Might take him into our fold..LOL!
Oh? Are you taking into the fold those who can't speak in tongues now?
ReplyDeleteTF writes: Oh? Are you taking into the fold those who can't speak in tongues now?
ReplyDeletemlculwell: You better believe it! That is how we all come "into the fold"! God can even fill you and James White with the Holy Ghost!
Let me ask you bluntly: have you taken the position that the gift of tongues is not necessary for salvation?
ReplyDeleteTF:"Let me ask you bluntly: have you taken the position that the gift of tongues is not necessary for salvation"?
ReplyDeletemlculwell: Yeah, I can tell you without batting an eye, there is not Oneness person anywhere that believes the "GIFT OF TONGUES is necessary for salvation!" LOL!
This shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Just like every other Reformed person I speak with.
So you are quibbling over the term "gift of tongues" then? What would you call it instead?
ReplyDeleteTF:"So you are quibbling over the term "gift of tongues" then? What would you call it instead"?
ReplyDeletemlculwell: Yeah, of course I am quibbling over "the gift of tongues"! This tells me much, for one thing you do not have any understanding of scripture and I will be spending my time trying to teach you something you will not accept.
This started out about you dishonestly, trying to somehow connect Harold Camping to the Oneness view, or to those you term "Modalist."
That was not working well so then you wanted to go toe to toe concerning our two views of God(Trinity Versus Oneness.)
Now you want to talk about receiving of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your doctrine By asking the following question! "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"?
Once more he did not ask; "have you believed on Jesus"? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know whom they were) your doctrine would have been understood and he would not have asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed!
They then spoke in tongues as evidence they received the spirit(Acts 19:6) They spoke in tongues first as that evidence(Not as the gift of tongues) there was no interpretation in (Acts 2:4) or in (Acts 11:15 it fell on Cornelius household as on us(the 120 not just the twelve) in the begging which referred to Acts 10:46)
in (Acts 19:6) This is not the gift of tongues! This is the gift of the spirit!(the Holy Ghost)
There are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased...
Please give the passage that says it changed to silent(Mental assent "faith") especially when Paul refutes that doctrine in Acts 19:2 with his question... For sure reception is by faith but not your but not your version of it which bypasses Grace, faith, the blood and preaching.
So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
ReplyDelete(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
TF writes:"So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
ReplyDeletemlculwell:What difference does that make?
Historical figures do not determine my doctrine unless those historical figures are the writers of the NT and the Lord Jesus Christ(The Author.)
where am I told in scripture (alone) to look to historical figures? What if those historical figures (in the majority) were wrong? Am I going to be wrong by lining up with Jesus and those writers of the NT?(John 17:17)
I do not concern my self with those historical writers, not even the Ancient Oneness who were referred to by their enemies. (What good would that do anyhow?) I do not believe their enemies ever ever told the truth about them or their doctrines and we only get a small taste of what they were about.
TF:(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
mlculwell: I see folks who believed like me from history but I take that with a grain of salt. If there were small groups throughout each century that were not in the majority, either in your view or in mine it proves nothing one way or the other for either of us.
TF: N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
mlculwell: I do believe there were anceint folks Sabelius, Praxeas, Noetus.
Where did Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, ever describe God as a Trinity or as three persons? Can you give me the quote?
There were many groups through out history that believed the biblical infilling of the spirit but that is nothing to the biblical witness.
Whatever their experience is between them and their and God and they are all long Gone but for sure today we remain and we have the truth of His word and it should not and cannot be ignored!
So you think Sabelius, Praxeas, and Noetus each believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
ReplyDeleteTF:"So you think Sabelius, Praxeas, and Noetus each believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
ReplyDeletemlculwell: It does not make a thimbles worth difference to me (at all!) what they or anyone else believed about it!
The truth is no historical figure you can prop up, or that I would not even bother anyhow, holds any weight to the truth.
You are deflecting. Nor does it matter what any other historical figures believed...
I think I have made that perfectly clear and yet you still want to harp on your belief about it because that is all you a have.
Give me the transition where it has all changed? You would think a doctrine so important would clearly be found in scripture.
Allow me to make this a little simpler for you? I believe all those historical figures (You bring up and the ones I do) and the creeds, hold about as much weight toward our salvation as the Book of Mormon. So in my view that holds zero weight toward anything we are discussing.
ReplyDeleteNo, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks. This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so. Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now.
ReplyDeleteYou should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life.
TF:"No, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks".
ReplyDeletemlculwell:Once more: "Knowing" or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. )
TF: "This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so".
mlculwell: You are the One contradicting yourself! Oneness has to do with the belief in Monotheism (One God, Jesus being that One God and a denial of three persons) LOL!
I can find all kinds of beliefs from so called ancient folks you would consider to be trinitarain's you would have no part of, some even recanted and became Arian.
"Modalism" as I have explained numerous times now, was a name that was given to us by you and the Enemies of the ancient Oneness. The term "Oneness" has to do with our belief in One God. Jesus being that One God! You have given us the name "Modalist"
You try and wrangle all these terms and now you are wrangling with a term you have given us, so you can distance yourself from your Brother Camping.
Again you lie and are dishonest. I want no part of a group that spends all their time lying and hiding truth and facts!(That would be you and Dr. White) That fact is obvious to me from this conversation with your folks.
TF:It does not contradict anything! Ancient Oneness does
Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now".
mlculwell; Then don't you ever call us a "Modalist" again! What have I been arguing with you guys about all this time? Oneness is a belief of Jesus being the One God and a flat out denial of the un-scriptural doctrine of "three persons of God." The folks of ancient times fit that description perfectly you just happened to take their term "mode" and call them "Modalists" but they were definitely Oneness! You are trying so hard.
Where did Harold Camping ever say: "there were three Modes of being" I guess that makes you a Modalist then! He(Camping) said: "God was/is three persons." Be consistent!
Again, I don't want to hear you, or anyone else use it for Oneness folks ever again. The fact is, you have spent so much time in calling us the (so called) ancient heresy of "Modalism"(Which does not exist) trying to get your folks to keep away from us in your lying to them about the jaded history, you do not know what right or wrong is!
The term "Mode" was used in describing God in his dealings with mankind by ancient and some contemporary Oneness folks. You grabbed onto that and used that term!
I am going to post your dishonesty on my blog for all to see your wrangling over this
TF:"You should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life".
mlculwell: It is you that should repent of all of your false doctrines and your lying! Your Calvinism does not allow for that nor does it do any good. LOL!
Manuel wrote: "'Knowing' or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. ) "
ReplyDeleteYet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims. And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
TF:Yet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
ReplyDeletemlculwell: That is exactly what I am not doing!
How, and why, would I appeal to historical figures outside the writers of the NT when I do not believe that it has any relevance to truth what soever? (I have been clear.)
It does no good when you do it, or anyone else. I think you would like to make it about that nonsense so that you can continue in your false arguments from history. Sorry I am not biting..LOL!
TF:Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims.
mlculwell: I have made none. The only thing I have done, is pointed to ancient Oneness folks. You are trying to make this about *tongues* in history(My appeal is to scripture alone.)
You have no bible for your false doctrine of the trinity(No Apostle taught it!) So you must appeal to men outside the NT to try and argue.
You and the Muslims teach false doctrine. You at least teach Jesus is God and the Grace of God albeit a very bad understanding of both.
Your doctrine of God is flat out polytheism. (There is no way around it when you are put on the spot) Even James White revealed it on His DL program concerning his view of the pre-incarnate God the son concerning (Philippians 2:6) where he had God equal to God. You can say what you like about the Muslim's being wrong as they are wrong but we are Monotheists and believe Jesus is the One real God, and at the same time the one real sinless man.(Not a hybrid mix)
TF: And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
mlculwell: LOL! Why would you ask me to do something you do not do nor even believe you can do?
I am sure you saying that looks pretty Good in front of all your Reformed Folks(He sure told him) Your real belief Bypasses grace preaching and the blood and you were chosen willy nilly in spite of all that, even repentance.. Preaching is no good, to you that is... LOL!
Oh Yeah, Harold camping belongs to reformed crowd as he Believes Calvinism and *God is three persons* there is not a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" anywhere that would make such an outrageous confession. It amazes how you folks can blatantly lie and twist things. i cannot believe anything you say anymore.
ReplyDeleteManuel:
ReplyDeleteYour slander is fully addressed above.
-TurretinFan
You have not addressed anything. I have also been part of this discussion and you continue to lie and twist things and then call me a
ReplyDelete"slanderer"? Against your false doctrines and untruths? LOL!
What other Oneness person whom you term "Modalist" has ever said:"God is three persons," As has Harold Camping?
ReplyDeleteThis clearly shows us your lies and deceit! There is not Oneness person anywhere that would claim such an un-scriptural bunch of nonsense!
Manuel, your dishonesty knows no bounds. The words from your heart show how unclean you are (Matthew 15:16-20; Mark 7:20-23) and God hates your lying tongue (Proverbs 6:16-19).
ReplyDeleteCarl, you might better listen to the discussion Between James White and Harold Camping who claims God is three persons so it is James White who is lying!
ReplyDeleteIf you have not listened then you should not bare false witness and jump to conclusions. You cannot call me dishonest if you have not listened...
You sound like Beukboom from the Carm-boards. If you are, then I can understand your claims, as you blindly defend your defenders, who are not very good at defending your doctrine.
Manuel, you have a long history of lying and misrepresenting events so it's highly likely you are being less than truthful here. You've proven yourself most untrustworthy and clearly a heretic who deceives like his father. You're habitually dishonest, lacking in self-control and devoid of Godly grace. Anyone familiar with you concur regarding your untrustworthiness.
ReplyDeleteListen to the discussion before you falsely accuse? But you have always been quick to lie and deceive and falsify.
ReplyDeleteManuel, stop lying and slandering others.
ReplyDelete