The Trinity : revisted

[Charlie24]

James 4:17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Serves as a powerful reminder of the responsibility believers have to act in accordance with God's revealed will. This verse highlights that knowing what is right and failing to do it is considered sin. This is a call to active obedience and a life of holiness, emphasizing that faith must be demonstrated through righteous actions.

In the context of salvation and daily living, this principle underscores the importance of adhering to the teachings and commandments found in Scripture. It implies that once a believer understands God's expectations—such as the necessity of repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Spirit—they are accountable for acting on that knowledge. Ignoring these revealed truths or failing to live by them constitutes sin because it is a deliberate neglect of God's instructions.

This verse challenges believers to diligently seek God's will and to live it out consistently. It reinforces the concept that genuine faith produces a transformed life characterized by obedience to God's Word. Therefore, James 4:17 is a compelling exhortation to not only believe but also to actively do what is good and right according to the knowledge of God's truth.

If we're going to "act in accordance to God's revealed will" as you say, then why does Oneness theology not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God's Word has plainly stated?

The mistake is following a second hand account of what Luke wrote in the Book of Acts, rather than the direct instructions given to Paul and then given to us by Christ.

The Book of Acts in not instruction, it's the account of what happened, and is so often misunderstood. That's why Christ gave us Paul with his 13 epistles (that's if you count Hebrews).

 

[First and the Last]

Yes, I certainly agree! It's the reason that can make it works or grace.

If one see's water baptism as the means of the forgiveness of sins, it has turned to a work-based salvation.

If one see's the forgiveness of sins only by the Blood of Lamb and water baptism as their union with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, it is a grace-based salvation.

Acts 2:38 underscores the essential steps for salvation as proclaimed by the apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost, emphasizing the conjunction "and" to link the necessary actions of repentance and baptism. The directive to "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" signifies a comprehensive and transformative response to the gospel message. Repentance involves a heartfelt turning away from sin and a sincere commitment to follow Jesus, acknowledging one's need for God's mercy and grace. It is the first step in aligning oneself with God's will and begins the process of spiritual renewal. The conjunction "and" in this context highlights that repentance alone is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by baptism.

Baptism, performed in the name of Jesus Christ, is seen as a critical act of obedience and identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It symbolizes the washing away of sins and the believer's entry into the new covenant relationship with God. Baptism is not merely a symbolic gesture but a vital component of the salvation process that results in the remission of sins. The conjunction "and" emphasizes that both repentance and baptism are required for the forgiveness of sins.

The phrase "for the remission of sins" underscores the purpose and effect of baptism, indicating that through baptism, one's sins are forgiven and removed, making the believer clean and justified before God. Therefore, according to Biblical theology, the conjunction "and" highlights the inseparable nature of repentance and baptism as indispensable steps for receiving the full measure of God's saving grace. Each individual must undertake both actions as an expression of their faith and obedience to Christ's command, ensuring they receive the remission of sins and enter into a new life in Christ.

We cannot take away the conjunction "and" or change "for the remission of sins" to "because of the remission of sins" just to fit into our own little narrative. God gives strong warning to subtracting from or adding to the word of God.

 

[First and the Last]

This is one of the several reasons the majority, by far, see's this movement as a cult and their teachings as heresy.

Paul is the only author in Scripture that tells us exactly how to be saved. He never one time included water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as the means to be saved.

He told us that salvation comes from within the heart, not from any outward experience such the ceremony of water baptism or speaking in tongues.

The Oneness theology is teaching a work-based salvation that is faith plus works.

I was water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as Christ commanded. But that ceremony performed by a man on my behalf was not for my salvation, but my profession of my union with Christs' death, burial, and resurrection.

When that ceremony is turned into a requirement to be saved, it is made into works apart from grace through faith. It's faith plus works. What did Paul say about that?

Romans 11:5-6
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

I understand the concerns and appreciate the desire for clarity on this vital issue. It is crucial to reconcile the entirety of Scripture, recognizing that salvation involves both faith and obedience to God's commands. While the apostle Paul indeed emphasized that salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), he did not exclude the necessity of obedience to the gospel. Paul's own teachings align with the full apostolic message that includes repentance, water baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-6).

When we look at Peter’s response to the crowd at Pentecost, “What shall we do?” in Acts 2:37-38, we see a comprehensive answer that includes repentance, water baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit. This was not in contradiction to faith but a demonstration of faith in action. Jesus Himself emphasized the need for water and Spirit in the new birth (John 3:5), and His Great Commission included baptizing disciples in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), which is understood to be fulfilled in the name of Jesus.

While the ceremony of water baptism symbolizes our identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4), it is also a command that signifies our obedience and faith. This is not seen as a work that earns salvation but as an expression of faith that receives God’s grace. Romans 11:5-6 speaks to the principle that salvation is a gift of grace, not of works. However, faith without obedience is incomplete (James 2:17-18).

Thus, water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit are integral components of the salvation experience, perfectly harmonizing with Paul's teaching on grace and faith. They are seen not as meritorious works but as essential responses to the Gospel, commanded by Christ and practiced by the early church.

 

[Charlie24]

Acts 2:38 underscores the essential steps for salvation as proclaimed by the apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost, emphasizing the conjunction "and" to link the necessary actions of repentance and baptism. The directive to "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" signifies a comprehensive and transformative response to the gospel message. Repentance involves a heartfelt turning away from sin and a sincere commitment to follow Jesus, acknowledging one's need for God's mercy and grace. It is the first step in aligning oneself with God's will and begins the process of spiritual renewal. The conjunction "and" in this context highlights that repentance alone is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by baptism.

Baptism, performed in the name of Jesus Christ, is seen as a critical act of obedience and identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It symbolizes the washing away of sins and the believer's entry into the new covenant relationship with God. Baptism is not merely a symbolic gesture but a vital component of the salvation process that results in the remission of sins. The conjunction "and" emphasizes that both repentance and baptism are required for the forgiveness of sins.

The phrase "for the remission of sins" underscores the purpose and effect of baptism, indicating that through baptism, one's sins are forgiven and removed, making the believer clean and justified before God. Therefore, according to Biblical theology, the conjunction "and" highlights the inseparable nature of repentance and baptism as indispensable steps for receiving the full measure of God's saving grace. Each individual must undertake both actions as an expression of their faith and obedience to Christ's command, ensuring they receive the remission of sins and enter into a new life in Christ.

We cannot take away the conjunction "and" or change "for the remission of sins" to "because of the remission of sins" just to fit into our own little narrative. God gives strong warning to subtracting from or adding to the word of God.

That's not what Paul said, and Christ gave us Paul to give the instructions! In Acts you're reading the accounts of what happened with no explanation that creates misunderstanding.

Paul cleared up all of it in his instructions of salvation. It's simple, you can follow and interpret what happened from Acts, or follow the plain instructions given by the apostle Paul.

Nowhere does Paul instruct us that water baptism forgives sin as you have interpreted from Acts. Nowhere does Paul tell us that tongues have anything to do with our initial salvation. You have interpreted that yourself from Acts.

You can follow instructions from Paul or follow your interpretations of Acts.

 

[First and the Last]

If we're going to "act in accordance to God's revealed will" as you say, then why does Oneness theology not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God's Word has plainly stated?

The mistake is following a second hand account of what Luke wrote in the Book of Acts, rather than the direct instructions given to Paul and then given to us by Christ.

The Book of Acts in not instruction, it's the account of what happened, and is so often misunderstood. That's why Christ gave us Paul with his 13 epistles (that's if you count Hebrews).

The command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is understood as referring to the singular name that represents the fullness of God revealed in Jesus Christ. "the name" (singular) points to the one name that embodies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—Jesus. Thus, baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ is seen as the proper fulfillment of this command, aligning with the practice of the apostles as recorded in the Book of Acts.

The Book of Acts provides a vital historical account of the early church and the practices of the apostles, who were directly commissioned by Christ. The instructions given by Jesus to His disciples and their subsequent actions, including the way they baptized new believers, reflect direct obedience to Jesus' teachings. Paul’s teachings and epistles, while crucial, do not contradict the practices outlined in Acts but rather complement and explain them.

While the Book of Acts is indeed a historical account, it is also considered to provide normative examples of how the early church implemented Jesus' commands. The narrative shows how the apostles, including Paul, carried out Jesus' instructions regarding baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Paul's epistles provide theological depth and further instruction, but they do not negate the foundational practices established in Acts. The actions of the apostles, including baptism in Jesus' name, are divinely inspired and instructive for believers today, complementing the teachings found in Paul’s letters.

 

[Charlie24]

The command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is understood as referring to the singular name that represents the fullness of God revealed in Jesus Christ. "the name" (singular) points to the one name that embodies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—Jesus. Thus, baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ is seen as the proper fulfillment of this command, aligning with the practice of the apostles as recorded in the Book of Acts.

The Book of Acts provides a vital historical account of the early church and the practices of the apostles, who were directly commissioned by Christ. The instructions given by Jesus to His disciples and their subsequent actions, including the way they baptized new believers, reflect direct obedience to Jesus' teachings. Paul’s teachings and epistles, while crucial, do not contradict the practices outlined in Acts but rather complement and explain them.

While the Book of Acts is indeed a historical account, it is also considered to provide normative examples of how the early church implemented Jesus' commands. The narrative shows how the apostles, including Paul, carried out Jesus' instructions regarding baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Paul's epistles provide theological depth and further instruction, but they do not negate the foundational practices established in Acts. The actions of the apostles, including baptism in Jesus' name, are divinely inspired and instructive for believers today, complementing the teachings found in Paul’s letters.

No, I'm sorry, I believe in 3 distinct persons of the Godhead, not this Oneness heresy.

 

[First and the Last]

That's not what Paul said, and Christ gave us Paul to give the instructions! In Acts you're reading the accounts of what happened with no explanation that creates misunderstanding.

Paul cleared up all of it in his instructions of salvation. It's simple, you can follow and interpret what happened from Acts, or follow the plain instructions given by the apostle Paul.

Nowhere does Paul instruct us that water baptism forgives sin as you have interpreted from Acts. Nowhere does Paul tell us that tongues have anything to do with our initial salvation. You have interpreted that yourself from Acts.

You can follow instructions from Paul or follow your interpretations of Acts.

Paul indeed speaks of baptism as a vital component of the Christian experience. In Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, he describes baptism as being buried with Christ and raised to new life, symbolizing the washing away of sin. This aligns with the apostolic teaching that baptism in Jesus' name is for the remission of sins, as seen in Acts 2:38.

Paul does discuss the role of the Holy Spirit extensively, including the manifestations of the Spirit. While tongues are one evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:5, 18), the focus is on the transformative power of the Spirit in a believer's life (Romans 8:9). The initial evidence of tongues, as seen in Acts, complements Paul's broader teaching on the Spirit's work in salvation and sanctification.

The instructions from Paul and the accounts in Acts are not mutually exclusive but rather integrative parts of the New Testament doctrine. Both provide a comprehensive understanding of salvation that includes faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Embracing the full counsel of Scripture ensures that believers follow a holistic and biblically grounded path to salvation, recognizing the unity and consistency of the apostolic teaching.

 

[First and the Last]

No, I'm sorry, I believe in 3 distinct persons of the Godhead, not this Oneness heresy.

Please stop calling plain Scripture heresy.

 

[Charlie24]

Paul indeed speaks of baptism as a vital component of the Christian experience. In Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, he describes baptism as being buried with Christ and raised to new life, symbolizing the washing away of sin. This aligns with the apostolic teaching that baptism in Jesus' name is for the remission of sins, as seen in Acts 2:38.

Paul does discuss the role of the Holy Spirit extensively, including the manifestations of the Spirit. While tongues are one evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:5, 18), the focus is on the transformative power of the Spirit in a believer's life (Romans 8:9). The initial evidence of tongues, as seen in Acts, complements Paul's broader teaching on the Spirit's work in salvation and sanctification.

The instructions from Paul and the accounts in Acts are not mutually exclusive but rather integrative parts of the New Testament doctrine. Both provide a comprehensive understanding of salvation that includes faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Embracing the full counsel of Scripture ensures that believers follow a holistic and biblically grounded path to salvation, recognizing the unity and consistency of the apostolic teaching.

That's what the Church of Christ believes, a cumulative salvation. In other words, they add together the instructions of Paul and their interpretations of Acts to create a work-based salvation in the forgiveness of sins through water baptism.

Paul never said what they have added to his instructions, but that doesn't stop them from adding it and creating a salvation of man.

 

[Charlie24]

Please stop calling plain Scripture heresy.

Please stop ignoring the instructions of Paul.

 

[First and the Last]

No, I'm sorry, I believe in 3 distinct persons of the Godhead, not this Oneness heresy.

The verse in Scripture (not my words) says name singular. Changing it to anything else, God warns from adding to or taking away from God's Word.

 

[First and the Last]

Please stop ignoring the instructions of Paul.

I appreciate your concern and desire for fidelity to Scripture, especially regarding Paul's instructions. In his epistles, Paul emphasizes unity, sound doctrine, and love among believers. He urges us to hold fast to the core tenets of our faith while exhibiting grace and understanding towards one another.

Adhering to Paul's instructions means valuing the essential truths of the Gospel, such as the Oneness of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the necessity of repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Spirit. Paul’s letters also call us to love, humility, and mutual respect, even amidst doctrinal differences.

Paul encourages believers to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) and to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). These principles guide us in our interactions with others, striving to maintain unity without compromising essential doctrines. By faithfully following Paul's instructions, we aim to reflect Christ's love and truth in all our relationships and doctrinal discussions.

 

[Charlie24]

The verse in Scripture (not my words) says name singular. Changing it to anything else, God warns from adding to or taking away from God's Word.

In Gen. 1:1 and in over 2500 other verses of Scripture, the word "God" is plural.

"In the beginning "GOD" created the heavens and the earth."

We know there is only one God, so why is "God" plural?

Would 3 distinct persons in one God be the answer?

 

[Charlie24]

I appreciate your concern and desire for fidelity to Scripture, especially regarding Paul's instructions. In his epistles, Paul emphasizes unity, sound doctrine, and love among believers. He urges us to hold fast to the core tenets of our faith while exhibiting grace and understanding towards one another.

Adhering to Paul's instructions means valuing the essential truths of the Gospel, such as the Oneness of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the necessity of repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and receiving the Holy Spirit. Paul’s letters also call us to love, humility, and mutual respect, even amidst doctrinal differences.

Paul encourages believers to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) and to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). These principles guide us in our interactions with others, striving to maintain unity without compromising essential doctrines. By faithfully following Paul's instructions, we aim to reflect Christ's love and truth in all our relationships and doctrinal discussions.

Hey pal, I didn't come here preaching the Oneness theology, I think it was you.

Oneness theology was first considered heresy in the 2nd century AD.

It wasn't me who said that, it was the overwhelming majority of the Church.

So don't start preaching love and unity with this heresy.

 

[First and the Last]

In Gen. 1:1 and in over 2500 other verses of Scripture, the word "God" is plural.

"In the beginning "GOD" created the heavens and the earth."

We know there is only one God, so why is "God" plural?

Would 3 distinct persons in one God be the answer?

Still doesn't take away the fact that Matthew 28:19 uses a singular name not names.

If the many scriptural passages in Acts that refer to water baptism in the name of Jesus do not describe a baptismal formula, then it is equally true that Matthew 28:19 does not indicate a formula. This interpretation would leave the church without any baptismal formula to distinguish Christian baptism from Jewish proselyte baptism and heathen baptism. But the Lord did not leave us without a baptismal formula; the church correctly carried out the instructions Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19 when the apostles used the name of Jesus in water baptism.

A common remark by some about the Old Testament doctrine of the oneness of God is that God only intended to emphasize His oneness as opposed to pagan deities but that He still existed as a plurality. However, if this conjecture were true, why did not God make it clear? Why have the Jews not understood a theology of “persons” but have insisted on an absolute monotheism? Let us look at it from God’s point of view. Suppose He did want to exclude any belief in a plurality in the Godhead. How could He do so using then-existing terminology? What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness. In Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.

Most scholars agree that the use of the plural word Elohim indicates God’s greatness or His multiple attributes. The Jews certainly do not see the plural form as compromising their strong monotheism. Flanders and Cresson explained that the plural usage in Hebrew has a certain function other than to indicate plurality: “The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty.” The Old Testament often uses elohim for singular pagan gods such as Baalberith (Judges 8:33), Chemosh (Judges 11:24), Dagon (Judges 16:23), Baalzebub (II Kings 1:2-3), and Nisroch (II Kings 19:37). The Bible even applies Elohim to Jesus Christ (Psalm 45:6; Zechariah 12:8-10; 14:5), and no one suggests there is a plurality of persons in Jesus.

 

[First and the Last]

Hey pal, I didn't come here preaching the Oneness theology, I think it was you.

Oneness theology was first considered heresy in the 2nd century AD.

It wasn't me who said that, it was the overwhelming majority of the Church.

So don't start preaching love and unity with this heresy.

What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness. In Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.

 

[First and the Last]

For me, it's not about subscribing to any particular denomination or following their teachings. My focus is solely on what Scripture plainly reveals and living out my relationship with Jesus Christ. It's about following Him wholeheartedly and seeking to understand and obey His Word. My faith journey is deeply personal, centered on Jesus and His teachings, rather than aligning with any specific church tradition. What matters most to me is nurturing a vibrant relationship with Christ, allowing His truth to guide my life and decisions. This journey is about seeking His will, growing in faith, and experiencing His love and grace every day. I understand a lot of what I say aligns with United Pentecostal Church. I assure you I am only saying what Scripture teaches.


Noone on Earth brings new revelation, that isn't already revealed through the Word of God (Jesus Christ), which is fullest revelation given to man. Through the moving and operation of the Holy Ghost, I Pray what we say here (with Scriptural backing) brings the truth of these Revelations, truth by truth, or precept upon precept, to the heart of the hearer. Lay what we say before the feet of Jesus (Word of God) and compare, the Bible is Always truth, so if they don't match, we need to reevaluate our stance. What we say or do here will have lasting impact upon the believer and sinner alike. We most certainly have freedom of speech, but any true christian will weigh what they say against the Word of God and if they don't agree God is not in error, and we need to pray for understanding. Those that have more meat of the Word can help those who are struggling, if done with humility, peace and love. I don't mind a peaceful debate, but when we start to argue amongst each other that is not the Spirit of God. God Bless and Peace to you all. (This signature is in general and not pointing fingers at anyone at anytime. God Bless.)

 

[Charlie24]

Still doesn't take away the fact that Matthew 28:19 uses a singular name not names.

If the many scriptural passages in Acts that refer to water baptism in the name of Jesus do not describe a baptismal formula, then it is equally true that Matthew 28:19 does not indicate a formula. This interpretation would leave the church without any baptismal formula to distinguish Christian baptism from Jewish proselyte baptism and heathen baptism. But the Lord did not leave us without a baptismal formula; the church correctly carried out the instructions Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19 when the apostles used the name of Jesus in water baptism.

A common remark by some about the Old Testament doctrine of the oneness of God is that God only intended to emphasize His oneness as opposed to pagan deities but that He still existed as a plurality. However, if this conjecture were true, why did not God make it clear? Why have the Jews not understood a theology of “persons” but have insisted on an absolute monotheism? Let us look at it from God’s point of view. Suppose He did want to exclude any belief in a plurality in the Godhead. How could He do so using then-existing terminology? What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness. In Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.

Most scholars agree that the use of the plural word Elohim indicates God’s greatness or His multiple attributes. The Jews certainly do not see the plural form as compromising their strong monotheism. Flanders and Cresson explained that the plural usage in Hebrew has a certain function other than to indicate plurality: “The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty.” The Old Testament often uses elohim for singular pagan gods such as Baalberith (Judges 8:33), Chemosh (Judges 11:24), Dagon (Judges 16:23), Baalzebub (II Kings 1:2-3), and Nisroch (II Kings 19:37). The Bible even applies Elohim to Jesus Christ (Psalm 45:6; Zechariah 12:8-10; 14:5), and no one suggests there is a plurality of persons in Jesus.

There's no way to prove that either way, just making you aware of the plurality.

 

[Charlie24]

What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness. In Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.

That is what we have been discussing for sometime now at TJ, maybe even before you got into the conversation.

No one can explain how 3 distinct persons can be one God. There is no attempt in Scripture to explain it, so we assume it's beyond mortal understanding.

The Scripture is clear in a relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit acting independently of one another. Of course I know you have a problem with that.

On the other hand, the Oneness folks think they have figured it out by denying the distinct person of the Father and Holy Spirit.

The problem is that for almost 20 centuries now that theory has and is considered heresy by the majority.

 

[First and the Last]

There's no way to prove that either way, just making you aware of the plurality.

At the same time there is no definitive Scripture that says He (God) is specifically three person, either.