United Pentecostal Church

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » May 27th, 2009, 4:10 am

Just because you have been a Christian for a long time doesn't mean you are any deeper than a new Christian. There are far too many examples of such.

Gerald Creasy · Postby **Gerald Creasy** » May 27th, 2009, 4:10 am

kurt73 wrote:If you look at various definitions of trinity you will find the various beliefs. Some say trinity ties the three person to One God, other say they are three separate gods. UPC just get hung up on it and consider every denomination trinity and that they worship three gods. I have had UPC ministers read what COGOP believes and they look at me and say, so you are oneness

Like I said from the very beginning it is all in how you define the word trinity.

The Proper definition of Trinity was hammered out in creeds, confessions and conferences hundreds of years ago.

It is not now "how you define it" it is how Christianity proper has defined it and any other definition is unacceptable.

scooter · Postby **scooter** » May 27th, 2009, 4:17 am

I've come across a couple of "oneness" guys and I have watched the debate.

I plan on doing a thesis on the gauged presence of God.

I find the oneness position a bit repulsive. I do know the guys to be sincere, just off task in being able to understand the nature of God.

I believe the book of John to be the best source of understanding regarding the three fold nature of the only true and living God.

kurt73 · Postby **kurt73** » May 27th, 2009, 4:22 am

Full Quiver wrote:Just because you have been a Christian for a long time doesn't mean you are any deeper than a new Christian. There are far too many examples of such.

Just using it as an example, you know like Paul did when he talked about babes on the milk. You are correct because all christians are given a measure of faith and what that measure is, is totally up to God.

kurt73 · Postby **kurt73** » May 27th, 2009, 4:27 am

Gerald Creasy wrote:
kurt73 wrote:If you look at various definitions of trinity you will find the various beliefs. Some say trinity ties the three person to One God, other say they are three separate gods. UPC just get hung up on it and consider every denomination trinity and that they worship three gods. I have had UPC ministers read what COGOP believes and they look at me and say, so you are oneness

Like I said from the very beginning it is all in how you define the word trinity.

The Proper definition of Trinity was hammered out in creeds, confessions and conferences hundreds of years ago.

It is not now "how you define it" it is how Christianity proper has defined it and any other definition is unacceptable.

So you are going to hold on to something that is not mention or taught in the Word of God but in your own words "The Proper definition of Trinity was hammered out in creeds, confessions and conferences hundreds of years ago." I'm I missing something here? I'm not trying to argue just asking?

By the way to me this is a healthy debate so please don't turn this into a ugly debate.

kurt73 · Postby **kurt73** » May 27th, 2009, 4:29 am

scooter wrote:I believe the book of John to be the best source of understanding regarding the three fold nature of the only true and living God.

Amen! I can't agree more.

Gerald Creasy · Postby **Gerald Creasy** » May 27th, 2009, 4:45 am

kurt73 wrote:So you are going to hold on to something that is not mention or taught in the Word of God......

The Triune nature of God is found with a complete and careful study of the New Testament.

If you claim that is is not taught or mentioned you admit your own scriptural ignorance and illustrate the sad withered state of scriptural teaching in Pentecostalism today.

kurt73 wrote:....but in your own words "The Proper definition of Trinity was hammered out in creeds, confessions and conferences hundreds of years ago." I'm I missing something here? I'm not trying to argue just asking?

What are you missing? Have you been to any Question and Subject session where an issue is argued out through scripture?

kurt73 wrote:....By the way to me this is a healthy debate so please don't turn this into a ugly debate.

Okay. No ugliness intended; firmness only.

EagerBeaver · Postby **EagerBeaver** » May 27th, 2009, 4:49 am

Poimen wrote:When it comes to their Christology, in general, they have it right. So, then, when they preach Christ crucified, and risen again, they have enough rudimentary truth to see genuine conversions to the Faith. Hence they are truly Christian and not a pseudo-Christian cult (i.e. Mormons or JWs).

Do I think their modalistic emphasis on the Godhead is error? Yep. But NOT in a damnable way. That is, I do not believe their denial of the trinity is a denial of God, nor of His Son. So that they can indeed be truly saved in spite of their error in this regard.

This is the approach that I have taken to the subject as well. I don't think the UPC is a cult per se, and as many others have alluded to I do see a large similarity between the old-school COGOP and the modern-day UPC.

However some of the beliefs, while steeped in a misunderstanding of the Bible, can and should be allowed to be changed by the Lord as they walk in an honest attempt to further understand His Word. Look what has happened to COGOP just in the past 15 years, the same thing can occur in the UPC when it comes to a paradigm shift in the way of the leadership's thinking.

kurt73 · Postby **kurt73** » May 27th, 2009, 5:00 am

Gerald Creasy wrote:
kurt73 wrote:So you are going to hold on to something that is not mention or taught in the Word of God......

The Triune nature of God is found with a complete and careful study of the New Testament.

If you claim that is is not taught or mentioned you admit your own scriptural ignorance and illustrate the sad withered state of scriptural teaching in Pentecostalism today.

I agree and yes I have studied it out. Hence why I'm saying when you get to the root meaning of what oneness and trinity is they are the same. If you want to debate/talk/compare then lets do it somewhere else beside in this thread that is off topic as it is.

kurt73 wrote:....but in your own words "The Proper definition of Trinity was hammered out in creeds, confessions and conferences hundreds of years ago." I'm I missing something here? I'm not trying to argue just asking?

What are you missing? Without getting into a huge post the origin of trinity and where it came from and what it originally stands for would give you different view in using the word "trinity".

Have you been to any Question and Subject session where an issue is argued out through scripture?

Sure I have and argueing over scripture is childish. Share point of views, or your own understanding with a open mind is more productive.

kurt73 wrote:....By the way to me this is a healthy debate so please don't turn this into a ugly debate.

Okay. No ugliness intended; firmness only.
So do I get 5 or 10 lashings for my unlearned christians walk

Gerald Creasy · Postby **Gerald Creasy** » May 27th, 2009, 5:08 am

How can you say you have studied it out and at the same time say it is not mentioned??

There is absolutely NO SAMENESS of Modalism and Trinitarianism at any level.

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » May 27th, 2009, 5:20 am

I love the 3 fold nature of God. The Godhead is a trinity and though that is hard to comprehend at times and for some more than others it is true none the less.

Oneness folks really miss out on blessings and truth by denying the existence of all three in one. I love the work of the Spirit don't get me wrong but my walk with God is so much more because of the Father and the Son whom happens to be my brother and advocate.

I know a guy that use to be oneness and he shared with me his testimony of how the Lord dealt with him and rebuked him for this denial of the three. He still has a ways to go in fully comprehending the trinity as well all probably do but he is better for it.

kurt73 · Postby **kurt73** » May 27th, 2009, 5:22 am

Gerald Creasy wrote:How can you say you have studied it out and at the same time say it is not mentioned??

There is absolutely NO SAMENESS of Modalism and Trinitarianism at any level.

First the word "trinity" or the teaching is never found in the bible. Also the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the belief of the trinity or that Jesus was god or was part of god did not even exist until two to three hundred years after the death of Jesus. Even the Encyclopedia Americana says “Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.” This teaching was adopted into “Christianity” from pagan religions 400 years before Jesus. So how can I take something that originated from pegan religions and say the bible teaches it. Our own Encyclopedias state it being a belief before Christ.

scooter · Postby **scooter** » May 27th, 2009, 5:29 am

kurt73 wrote:
First the word "trinity" or the teaching is never found in the bible. Also the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the belief of the trinity or that Jesus was god or was part of god did not even exist until two to three hundred years after the death of Jesus. Even the Encyclopedia Americana says “Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.” This teaching was adopted into “Christianity” from pagan religions 400 years before Jesus. So how can I take something that originated from pegan religions and say the bible teaches it. Our own Encyclopedias state it being a belief before Christ.

Response: By a better understanding of the scripture? :lol:

I think it is an extreme stetch to say it was a deviation from early Christianity. I think it was most likely an understood element of the early church, the disciples/apostles, as is shown in their writings, but was in need of clarification once they were gone and the influence of their understanding began to wain.

scooter · Postby **scooter** » May 27th, 2009, 5:32 am

I do think that there are apsects of that church that could be considered cultish. They need to mature out of the exclusive mindset just as we did.

Gerald Creasy · Postby **Gerald Creasy** » May 27th, 2009, 5:38 am

kurt73 wrote:
Gerald Creasy wrote:How can you say you have studied it out and at the same time say it is not mentioned??

There is absolutely NO SAMENESS of Modalism and Trinitarianism at any level.

First the word "trinity" or the teaching is never found in the bible. Also the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the belief of the trinity or that Jesus was god or was part of god did not even exist until two to three hundred years after the death of Jesus. Even the Encyclopedia Americana says “Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.” This teaching was adopted into “Christianity” from pagan religions 400 years before Jesus. So how can I take something that originated from pegan religions and say the bible teaches it. Our own Encyclopedias state it being a belief before Christ.

Again you display your own ignorance of scripture.

The Encyclopedia is not what you base Biblical Belief Upon.

The Bible is what you base your Belief Upon.

The foundational truth of the trinity is replete in scripture (hundreds of years before "fourth century trinitarianism")

Jude 2