At Vatican II Roman Catholicism changed the status of Protestants from “heretics” to “separated brethren”. This was intended to be an ecumenical act. It was a means of reopening dialog between Catholics and Protestants likely in the hope (of most Catholics) that the Protestants would eventually be “welcomed” back to Rome.
For many Protestants this is not satisfying because for the most part Catholicism speaks of itself as the “true church”. We see similar language amongst Eastern/Greek/Russian Orthodox types where there is a willingness to call the rest of us “Christian” but maybe second class.
As a former Oneness Pentecostal it does not surprise me when I hear Oneness Pentecostals condemn the rest of us Christians to hell. They have been taught and teach that they are the “remnant”. Nevertheless, there are many (especially younger) ones who want to revive the old “Second Blessing” language of Pentecostalism in order to include the rest of Christendom that has not spoken in tongues (or amongst Oneness Pentecostals who have not baptized “in the name of Jesus” according to the language of Acts 2.38 or even further for some who demand “holiness standards” of “true” Christians) in the mix as still “Christians” but somehow second level, second class, lesser Christians. They don’t want Lutherans or Methodist to be “lost” but they don’t want to let them be equal either.
When I hear some friends who are Oneness Pentecostals speak as if the rest of us are “separated brethren” I known they mean well. They are trying to find a reason to keep us out of hell. Like the language of Vatican II–that does seem to have worked in reviving conversations between Catholics and Protestants–so this language does seem to create an opportunity to at least talk to some Oneness Pentecostals knowing they haven’t condemned us to hell.
On the other hand, I find it somewhat condescending. It is still a bit discomforting to know you are talking to a Christian who thinks you are a “Christian”. It may be as bad as being told you are essentially “lost”.
How do you feel about this? As a Protestant do you appreciate the effort of Vatican II or do you see it as still being a negative assessment of your faith? Or as a Catholic amongst Protestants are you OK with Protestants talking about you like you are a Christian with a few kinks to work out? Maybe some “liberal” Protestant feel this way about evangelicals? Do you mind being considered a “second class Christian” or is this as bad as not being considered a Christian at all?

October 5, 2010 at 9:43 am
I think this is an emotive plea. For example, the Muslim world will call all of us the great whore or America the Great Satan. At the end of the day it is about the Scriptures themselves. Jesus and His followers never laid a claim to ecumenism nor did they seek to blend in rather they lived as revolutionaries.
October 5, 2010 at 9:48 am
James,
Are you saying as a OP that you disagree with OPs that use inclusivist language?
October 5, 2010 at 10:33 am
Brian,
Since I have been both Roman Catholic and then Anglican “Protestant”, I myself like the term, “Separated Brethren”. We had a Reformation, not a forever separation in the Church. At times I feel drawn back toward Rome. Note the new Anglicanorum Coetibus for Anglicans. But, Rome is not without the reality of what the whole Church is also, i.e. a Pilgrim Church and Body in this world and life. But where is the “authority” of the Church today? This question comes back to what is the Church also?
October 5, 2010 at 11:01 am
I would disagree with OP’s who use inclusive language if they truly believe that the new birth consists of the water and Spirit baptisms.
October 5, 2010 at 11:05 am
Carol,
So you feel it best to just stick with a remnant view? What do you do with the rest of us Christians? What would you say to some of your fellow OPs who want to find a way to recognize the rest of us as legitimate?
October 5, 2010 at 11:27 am
Brian,
Talk about “separated brethren”, the OP’s view of the Godhead (Monarchianism) is simply wrong! Sorry, but it just must be said and noted!
October 5, 2010 at 11:32 am
Robert,
You’re more than welcome to say it. They will say it! And this brings up a great question: from the other side, as an Anglican, would you view an OP as a “separated brethren” or worse?
October 5, 2010 at 11:54 am
Brian,
Most definitely I would see any Christian so-called Monarchianism as “separated brethren”. I must confess as historically both R. Catholic and Anglican (and here I must also place the E. Orthodox), that the Trinity of God is simply ‘mainstay’! Of course one can be ignorant of the Trinity and be a Christian, if they see Christ as both God and Man. But, to speak against the great doctrine of the Trinity of God, in blatant fashion, is very problematic to my mind! Their doctrine of God makes God uni-personal. It is here BTW, that Joel and I have had our most harsh words. Though he has gone the extra mile in his study, and has made some changes. He would be a good challenge I think for the OP’s.
October 5, 2010 at 12:10 pm
BTW, Joel, I think follows Marcellus of Ancyra? Brian, since you come out from this, what do you think?
October 5, 2010 at 12:16 pm
It really depends on the person. I know some who do not have the ridiculous soteriology that many Oneness Pentecostals hold and that explain Father, Son, and Spirit in such a way that I can’t understand why they think they’re different. Others are basically modalist and think everyone in the world, including some Oneness Pentecostals, are bound for hell. With the former I am more than willing to see them as Christians while strongly disagreeing with them on various issues that I’d like to see them rethink.
The stricter types I think as cultic and while I’ll leave their salvation to God I am very concerned for any group that is that sectarian. I would express the same concerns for people who worship John MacArthur and act like they are the only true Christianity. That sort of sectarianism scares me.
October 5, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Oh, and I should add that I don’t think I know anything about Marcus of Ancyra.
October 5, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Brian,
Well I am Trinitarian, top to bottom! lol Seriously though I struggle with those that pound down hard against the Trinity of God. Perhaps here is where I should recommend the classic book: Early Christian Doctrines, by J.N.D. Kelly. The Trinity of God is the doctrine of the Godhead, certainly! But, as God’s essence, we simply spin our wheels. Here the Orthodox whould use the idea of God’s “energies”.
October 5, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Robert,
I am Trinitarian as well. I don’t see a reason to use language that is not Trinitarian, especially since there is so much room within Trinitarian dogma to discuss potential ways in how to best explain it. I think OPs started this way but when their views were denied they became sectarian and then added as much to their doctrinal structure as possible to denounce the rest of Christendom.
October 5, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Brian,
The OP’s are not that old, right? 1930′s?
BTW, here is a piece on Marcellus of Ancyra…
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09642a.htm
October 5, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Robert,
Correct. There were some proto-OPs in the teens and 20′s but what causes them to form their own identity was expulsion from the AOG.
October 5, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Brian, yes. I would. I do not believe our differences are real and are more than semantics at the end of the day. I do not believe however discussion should be over or is fruitless. I was also suggesting that Jesus would not disagree with a level of exclusivity.
October 5, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I mean to say “I do believe our differences are real…”
October 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I believe our differences are often real. Likewise, there are some OPs that I don’t disagree with on many matters. It is often case by case.
While I agree that Jesus was comfortable with exclusivity I don’t think so amongst his disciples. OPs have to appeal to a remnant theology to justify their sectrarianism which I find problematic and is also where I find dialog comes close to breaking down. If OPs are right then faith in Christ amongst millions is nothing but a facade and that is the only way to pat oneself on the back and have good reason for saying the rest of Christianity isn’t “real”. If OPs are right Scripture teaches something very obscure while what seems evident–faith in Christ–is spread across each page. If OPs are right like 1% of all Christians all time are saved and the rest wasted there time. This is more than troublesome.
October 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Again, you are making an emotive appeal which is a relatively weak argument but one we should consider. Obviously though the Scriptures itself is our litmus test. Jesus never promised billions would follow him, did He? He said the way was narrow and few there be that find it so if I am looking for majority opinion, numbers, or following the crowd then its probable I am going the wrong way. Not exclusive among His disciples? This needs to be fleshed out a little. Esp. given the fact that by selecting the twelve and not other was bit exclusive too.
October 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm
James,
I hate to open your eyes to this reality but we are emotive beings (I thought Pentecostals knew that). I am not sure why you limit doctrinal discussion to brain-in-a-vat debates as if we humans aren’t holistic. We approach Scripture as humans. So if you are wanting to act like you are “objective” in this matter I think you are not being honest with yourself (especially coming from an “apologist”).
That being said, I don’t think it is any secret that I have given my exegetical explanations in dozens of post for over a half decade now. It hardly is worth repeating my interpretations of passages like Acts 2, 8, and 19 since I am well aware my arguments have been rejected by OP theologians and apologist. But to act as if I just go with what I feel and I am acting as if I just can’t accept this or that because it makes me cry a little as night is silly.
On another note, you are exactly right. The Scriptures present exclusivity and inclusivity around the person of Christ. If Jesus calls someone to follow him and that person has placed there faith in him this person is an authentic disciple. This person has been promised the Spirit of the New Covenant. The OP soteriology does not follow this model at all. It is more gnostic than gnosticism; more election driven than hard Calvinism; more taken up by glossolaliac utterances than Corinth.
October 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Brian,
What caused the “expulsion” of many from the AOG? Was it over the Trinity, or the “sign” of Tongues for the elect? I know a few OP’s myself, mostly here in the US.
October 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Robert,
I have not heard the story from the perspective of the AOG but only from historians of the UPCI. I know one preacher at a camp meeting told everyone that baptism according to Acts 2.38 (“in the name of Jesus”) was the “true” baptism while the baptism of Matthew 28.19 (“in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”) was “interpreted” by Acts 2.38, i.e. “the name” of the Father, Son, and Spirit is “Jesus”. Since early OPs believed Jesus is the Father, Son, and Spirit the singular “name” made sense via some sort of canonical hermeneutic (rather than noticing “name” is primarily about “authority” and not labels to identify individuals).
As far as I understand it the tongues doctrine was shared by both Trinitarian AOG members and the new emerging Oneness sect. So the issue was (a) the Trinity and connected closely (b) “mode” of baptism.
October 5, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Brian,
Thanks. Yes, I have chatted some with an OP. I wrote a blog (still on my site, 2008 or 9?) about the baptismal formula. It is not indepth, but I quoted some Calvin if I remember? And yes – “in the name of Jesus”- is much more by his authority, than the formula itself of baptism.
October 5, 2010 at 6:55 pm
irishanglican – From reading the New Advent article, Marcella’s view of the Trinity matches in many respects that of Tertullian in Against Praxeas.
October 5, 2010 at 7:06 pm
CarolJean,
Yes, of course you mean the view of Praxeas, that Tertullian wrote against, in his: Against Praxeas. Just to give clarity for the readers.
October 5, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Tertullian was the first to give this now famous formulation: “tres personae, una substantia” (three persons, one substance).
October 5, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Irishanglican, no, Marcellus’ view given on the New Advent site is in fact inline with that of Tertullian’s in Against Praxeas. Give it a read some time. It’s an entertaining and amusing read.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm See chapter 5
October 5, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Brian,
So you feel it best to just stick with a remnant view? What do you do with the rest of us Christians? What would you say to some of your fellow OPs who want to find a way to recognize the rest of us as legitimate?
How can someone who believes that the new birth consists of water and Spirit baptism be inclusivists? Their accepted belief in the new birth excludes inclusivism. They don’t have to deny what they believe to recognize others who believe in Christ. But how can they recognize them as part of the body of Christ if they haven’t “… by one Spirit are we all baptized [water baptism] into one body, … and have been all made to drink [Spirit baptism] into one Spirit.”? So what then? They can reach out to others who believe in Christ, encouraging them to be baptized in the name of Christ and with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking with other tongues.
I’m interested in what you think about Acts 8 and those who believe the gospel and were baptized in the name of the Lord but hadn’t received the Holy Spirit. If Romans 8: 9-11 means what it says, that if we don’t have the Spirit of Christ IN us then we don’t belong to Christ, so when does a believer receive the Spirit? And when did the believers in Acts 8 receive the Spirit?
October 5, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Carol,
I will let a OP who holds that position defend it. I don’t really care what OPs believe unless they are friends or family of mine. I don’t take OP theology seriously most of the time.
If you are interested in my reading of Acts 8 go to the categories drop down menu and scroll through my many post on Acts. If you really want to know my view it can be found there. I see no reason to repeat it every time an OP throws out a “what about”.
October 5, 2010 at 10:22 pm
CarolJean,
I have the Book; Against Praxeas, by Tertullian.
October 6, 2010 at 4:35 am
I’m not bothered by the language of “separated brethren” but I’d say it’s only truthful at times, i.e., it depends on who uses it. My God is the same God as the Eastern and Western churches but it is not the same God as the OPs or JWs or Mormons. If Catholics want to call me a separated brother then fine, it’s true I guess, but the OP who knowingly denies the Trinity and knowingly affirms some other view of God is not my brother (or sister). Note that I said “knowingly” since it’s possible to be a OP and know next to nothing about God at all. I’ve known quite a few OPs who just believed the Gospel and never went any deeper than that. They wouldn’t be able to articulate a OP view of God any more than a Trinitarian view (shame on them though since this is important stuff!).
October 6, 2010 at 4:36 am
I’d add to that comment that I’ve known more than a few Trinitarian Christians who are in the same boat about not being able to articulate a Trinitarian or Oneness view of God.
October 6, 2010 at 5:07 am
Brian,
Brian,
I can understand why you don’t take an OP’s theology seriously since you don’t believe it is biblically true but surely having been an OP at one time you can at least understand their point of view on soteriology and why it is inclusive. And I understand your concern with the many believers in Christ, now and throughout history, who are excluded from being part of the church due to this soteriology.
I’ll see if I can find you view on Acts 8 in the archives. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
October 6, 2010 at 5:13 am
Nick,
So even though an OP is filled with the Spirit of Christ, believes the gospel, earnestly seeks the God of the Bible, he/she is not your brother/sister in the Lord because they have a wrong understanding of God?
What does it take to belong to Christ and once someone belongs to Christ, in your opinion, what can separate them from the body of Christ?
October 6, 2010 at 6:51 am
Brian, I am sorry for how my post may have came across. I was not trying to suggest you were crying or that the argument was silly or you are not using your intellect. I said it was emotive but was ALSO one we should consider. I included it as a caveat since it should at least be kept in mind. I believe that IS objective. Faith is essential, I do realize, esp concerning Christ. However, faith does not refer to just positive or mental assent. Jesus did not just expect His disciples to simple “believe” on Him without obedience.
October 6, 2010 at 7:00 am
I much prefer “separated brethren” to “condemned.” Ecumenical dialogue is important. The more I read the NT the more I’m convinced that we protestants have missed unity as a huge theme. In Galatians, for instance, I don’t think circumcision in itself is the problem. Circumcision is nothing! (As Paul says twice.) What matters is that circumcision is ripping the nascent community into two groups.
Of course, this doesn’t mean a wishy-washy unity based on a watered-down gospel, but it does mean we have to make serious efforts to work together in Christ by his Spirit.
October 6, 2010 at 7:21 am
Nick: I tend to be more willing to consider OPs as Christians with some very serious doctrinal errors. In part it has to do with what Carol above proposed in that I have seen God move amongst them in his grace despite their sectarianism, their doctrines, and even their frequent abuses of the charismata. In the end I am obliged to let God judge that but it would be dishonest for me to act like I have no stake in it since I have a few family members who are OPs and emotionally I want to preserve their Christianity to some extent.
Carol: I was raised around OPs and I went to four years of college in an OP school. I don’t mean to act like I am brushing it aside without considering their views. I have considered their views and I thought over them for many years and in the end I found the structure tried to be too tidy to the point that I felt like it was dishonest. There are many theological systems presented by many denominations that I see this way, but I have come to see the OP errors as the most serious since unlike other denominations the OPs have split away from the rest of Christendom over primary issues and not just secondary issues.
James: I don’t disagree that faith leads to obedience or that faith is more than just thinking about Jesus as a wonderful Savior. I am saying the OP soteriology tries to be tidy to the point of awkward. If a Christian obeys the command to be baptized but does it in the words of Mt. 28.19 rather than Acts 2.38 they are often considered lost in your circles. Both of these passages are the interpretation of various biblical authors and essentially point the same direction. It is as if in the OP structure God plays games with people to see if they will “choose the right verse”. What about those communities that didn’t have access to Luke-Acts but only Matthew before canonization began to take effect. That seems weird to me that God would play games that would make even fundamentalist blush.
Or the Spirit is a gift but what this “really” means is you must sit and beg and whine at the alter until you experience glossolalia (which Paul said he wished everyone could experience but notes not all do). The one passage that provides even a slight tip of the hat to such dogma is Acts 8 and I think this is reading Luke’s usage of “outpouring” and “filling” language through the lens of Azusa Street in an illegitimate manner. I have experienced arguing in circles on this passage to the point I don’t even want to try to convince anymore OPs that it isn’t strong enough a foundation to build such dogma on so I know the rebuttal well, but I maintain it is not strong enough to build a doctrinal edifice that allows such demands or allows you to ignore the obvious passages like Jesus’ prayer that we’d all be one.
Alex: Well said. I try to be as eccumenical as possible. Some groups like RCs and EOs don’t bother me when they use this language because they rightly claim to be the most “ancient” expressions of the faith so I can see where this would come from. Other groups, like some Reformed or even my beloved Pentecostals, make claims based on their particulars that ignore the center.
October 6, 2010 at 7:52 am
Irishanglican,
Have you read the book? I have many books that I haven’t read yet.
Tertullian had what some theologians call a Logos Christology which was common among the early apologists. He saw the Father as being God and the Son and Spirit as being of the same substance and coming from the Father internally. Tertullian expressed a very nascent Trinity. Perhaps he could have affirmed the Athanasian Creed although with some qualifications especially the parts on coequality and coexisting eternally.
October 6, 2010 at 9:11 am
CarolJean,
Yes I have read ‘Against Praxeas’, one of Tertullian’s apologetics against the monarchianism of Praxeas. It is the question and reality of the honor of God in His own essence, as One & Three: and can God be both father & son? is a most necessary question if God is to be credible. The divine economy has to be within God; it cannot be the detachable plan of a changeable being, (Eph.3:9). There is no modality in the nature of God. Thus for Tertullian trinity and christology become really one! Also for Tertullian monarchy & economy must go together in God, and as we have come to see ‘The economic trinity is the immanent trinity and vice versa.’ He is one of the Churches first great early trinitarian thinkers!
I am a Tertullian guy myself, he with Augustine has helped shape Western Christian Theology. Let me recommend Eric Osborn’s book: Terullian, the first theologian of the West, (Cambridge Paperback, 2003). Osborn lives and teaches in Melbourne.
October 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
*Tertullian
October 6, 2010 at 9:34 am
Irishanglican, it seems you see parts withing the ontological nature of God. Would you disagree with those like R.C. Sproul who say that the “distinctions are not sacred…but important”? He is saying this in context or concerning the transcendence of God, His metaphysical, timeless nature.
October 6, 2010 at 9:45 am
Brian, you are presupposing quite a bit as you construct this caricature of Oneness. Hurtado has done a great job in showing how veneration of Jesus and the name of Jesus as well being immediately recognized and not a development post-biblical literature. We could also discuss Matthean or Markan priority. Either text has very good language concerning the name of Jesus.
Also, when I met my wife she was SBC. We taught her about two bible studies and then went to a youth rally. She simply walked to the altar, and out of genuine faith, began to speak in tongues effortlessly. She did not walk to the altar to “speak in tongues” but to accept God and His Spirit into her life. I do not think we have to beg God, at all. Faith is important.
October 6, 2010 at 10:00 am
I have no idea what your use of Hurtado has anything to do with what I said. Let us make an effort to talk as two individuals. Last time we had a discussion you kept citing someone I have never read. This doesn’t have any meaning if I don’t know your referent.
As regards your wife good for her. It proves little. I went years asking to speak in tongues before actually doing so. Does my experience cancel hers? Does hers cancel mine? Not sure if your point.
October 6, 2010 at 10:06 am
And if you are hoping that veneration if the name of Jesus (I affirm that) or Matthean priority (probably invalid to the discussion) has anything to do with whether a text from Acts cancels or interprets one from Matthew you have no grounds other than a form of historical reconstruction that can’t be verified or denied and therefor is fairly useless.
October 6, 2010 at 10:06 am
And if you are hoping that veneration if the name of Jesus (I affirm that) or Matthean priority (probably invalid to the discussion) has anything to do with whether a text from Acts cancels or interprets one from Matthew you have no grounds other than a form of historical reconstruction that can’t be verified or denied and therefor is fairly useless.
October 6, 2010 at 10:09 am
James,
There is an apophatic theological aspect to the doctrine of God certainly. But since God is the Logos, He has revealed Himself.. first in Revelation, Creation (itself a revelation) & Scripture OT, then of course in the grand “Incarnation” itself. It is here in the NT that we can peer into the Godhead Itself…John 1:14;18, etc. And as St. Paul says: the Son, “He is the image of the invisible God..” (Col. 1:15). But ‘the Father and the Son’ is great bond and act of Love, in the “person” of the Holy Spirit.
October 6, 2010 at 10:12 am
Brian, then maybe you should re-read your own remarks. E.g.
“It is as if in the OP structure God plays games with people to see if they will “choose the right verse”. What about those communities that didn’t have access to Luke-Acts but only Matthew before canonization began to take effect. That seems weird to me that God would play games that would make even fundamentalist blush.”
As I said you are painting an incorrect caricature of Oneness and in the meantime presenting a low view of Scripture or at least the realization of the name of Jesus and its efficacy. I may be wrong, and good if I am. In your statement above I think you could leave one to suppose that there is a choice among the verses as to decide on the name of Jesus or a baptismal formula, etc. I suggest you are misunderstanding the canon as well. The canon did not arise because we had to get our ducks together or etc but because of a real need to record the information that those “eyewitness’” or etc had before they were all dead. The canon was simply more codified but I do think the notion of the writings of Paul and Peter or etc were inspired of God as equal with OT Scripture. I quoted Hurtado because he is a Trinitarian scholar who recognized the psychological awareness of the early church to the efficacy of Jesus name. The one name of Matt. 28:19 is Jesus and therefore no matter which Gospel they had or did not have is almost irrelevant.
October 6, 2010 at 10:17 am
It seems such a caricature presupposes that an awareness or understanding of the name of Jesus may not have been immediate, but evolving or appearing when the Gospel itself was written. The writings of Paul are more than likely written prior to the Gospels as well.
October 6, 2010 at 10:20 am
In the end your ramblings are inconvicing because you assume (1) Mt 28.19′s one name is Jesus. Not verifiable. Not what it says. You can quote scholars all day that you think support this but I am more justified in my reading than you because I don’t have to guess the psychology of an author whom we cannot access.
(2) Name is essentially authority. If Jesus or Father, Son, and Spirit are used the question is object of faith. If it is the God who is Father, Son, and Spirit who we know though Jesus the faith is valid. Jesus is not a magic word. Of course you’ve heard this, rejected it, and go on with your apologetic so God speed to you crusader of gnostic truth.
October 6, 2010 at 10:25 am
If it was known or not known you presuppose salvation is built on historical reconstruction. It isn’t. It is faith. I don’t think you get my point.
October 6, 2010 at 10:38 am
I could prove Matt. 28:19 is referring to one singular name or I could quote an authority. You will not accept either so I think it is pointless. You are mistaken about OP theology and just because you have experience with it does not mean you can represent it accurately. If so, all the ex-Christian’s converted to Islam are golden. You cannot separate the authority from the name. This is wordplay. This is reading a Western perspective into the texts of Scripture. For example, the name of Jesus, even when spoken, would be recognized as the continuing revelation of the name of God as YHWH/YVHV (Ex. 3:14-15). I am not presupposing salvation as completely contingent upon evidence or historical fact either. This is to read too much into my statements. I am saying we cannot suggest that they were clueless about the name until the canon or at least a gospel writer penned the words.
You have an invalid, incorrect view of OP. I am sorry you had a bad experience It is not normative.
October 6, 2010 at 10:39 am
James,
There is not one piece of NT witness or theology that Jesus “name” is all three persons of the Godhead! But His name (Savior) is the authority and witness of the Father’s love, and the Spirit’s bond of love. (Rom.15:30, note too Titus 3:4-7)
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (2 Cor.13:13) Simply but profoundly, ‘three persons (personae), in one substance’. Our Blessed Triune God!
October 6, 2010 at 10:42 am
Jesus/Yeshua – YHWH is salvation. There was no way of divorcing this meaning from the psyche of the 1st Cent. Christians. Even the Carmen Christi is an early hymn to Jesus as God and thus the use of kyrios which implies YHWH.
October 6, 2010 at 10:47 am
You can “prove”? Your funny. Glad you think that.
October 6, 2010 at 10:56 am
Brian, I am trying to show the futility of your thinking. It didn’t matter if I presented an argument without citing an authority or if I did in your estimation. As far as the point of your thread, separated brethren may be right only in the sense of “brothers in humanity” but not brothers in Christ. I think that is normal however and you must say the same since our differences are more than semantics.
October 6, 2010 at 10:58 am
Also the work of the Atonement in the Death of Christ, is fully triune:
“How much more will the blood of the Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God.” (Heb. 9:14, HCSB)
October 6, 2010 at 11:03 am
James,
You are failing. In part it may have to do with your form of communication. You don’t tie your arguments together in a way that I can see where you are going. You come across as saying “What about this? What about that? What about what this person says?” I really have no idea where your overall approach is aiming.
I’d be more than willing to post here an article you write in an orderly manner explaining why you think what you think about baptism. If I can I will do the same today in a separate blog post.
October 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
Going back to the blog issue, and “separated brethren”. It is hard for me at least, to consider the OP’s as fully Christian Brethren, with this kind of attack on the Trinity of God, and the issue that only those that are baptised in Jesus name, and speak in tongues, are really Christian’s. This is both sectarian and worse, heretical. It is one thing not to know or understand the great doctrine of the Trinity, quite another to attack the doctrine. My thoughts at least.
October 6, 2010 at 12:01 pm
“When I was fifteen (in the autumn of 1816) a great change of thought took place in me. I fell under the influences of a definite creed and received into my intellect impressions of dogma which, through God’s mercy, have never been effaced or obscured.” (John Henry Newman, and the “creed” here was his Calvinist and Evangelical conversion.)
Here is one that later in life also became a Roman Catholic, and now has been called “Blessed” by that Church. I quote this to show that Christian conversion is much bigger than our mental powers, but it does not leave them aside either.
I wonder if Newman ever spoke in tongues? I have myself (years back in the Charismatic Renewal), but now I wonder if it was psychological, (Jungian?). BTW, I can still do such, but hardly choose to.
October 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm
It’s been years since I spoke in tongues also but I can’t if I tried and I won’t try because when I did [speak with tongues years ago], the words flowed out from my lips with no conscious effort of my own self. If God wants me to speak with tongues it will be by His Spirit in me. But if I could speak with tongues, I certainly wouldn’t quench it!
So what does this mean…..? It means that the initial evidence of tongues is not the same as the gift of tongues otherwise I should have no problem speaking with tongues when I pray.
October 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Brian, I apologize for not being clear. I am no expert and I probably didn’t make my statements as lucid as possible. I mean no offense, and I truly enjoy some of your insights on the blog. I have Near Emmaus in my Google Reader. I was posting off the cuff. I will get some links together later. I do not want to be seen as an enemy or act as an enemy although I cannot deny our differences. About to cook supper.
October 6, 2010 at 12:45 pm
James,
Isn’t life just precious itself? I cannot cook a lick, well maybe a just a bit. With my wife’s help, she talks me thru it sometimes. My wife is younger than I am, but suffers chronic COPD. So I have to cook some.
So would you agree with CarolJean as to the work of the Spirit? And can we not also quench the truth in our minds?
October 6, 2010 at 1:55 pm
James,
Brian hasn’t denied the early recognition of Jesus’ name. What Brian has asserted is that many Oneness Pentecostals will condemn through their model those who were baptized using the words in Matthew 28:19. Brian’s point is that not every community that had Luke-Acts would have had access to Matthew’s gospels and vice versa. It is even possible that some communities didn’t have access to either gospel. It is highly doubtful that any of these communities would condemn the other for “using the wrong formula.” Interestingly, the first-century document the Didache refers to Matthew 28:19 as the valid formula; even if that passage in the Didache was added later, it attests that the standard Trinitarian formula had gained prominence early on—much earlier than the centuries-long gap that some want to attribute to Matthew’s version becoming popular.
Your suggestion that Brian has misunderstood the canon is unwarranted as the official canon had not even been developed at the time of the circulation of the gospels. Lastly, I don’t see where Brian has caricatured Oneness Pentecostals. Do you deny that Oneness Pentecostals condemn Trinitarians to hell for their baptism having been in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and for their lack of “spirit infilling”?
October 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm
John,
Well said, thanks for tying it together. I had been responding from my phone so it was laborious. This is a correct representation of what I was saying.
October 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm
To the blog post, the term “separated brethren” shouldn’t be offensive and isn’t pejorative in my view. The term “brethren” apparently suggests that Protestants are part of the family in some sense. As is often the case with siblings, we will squabble over who is better, or in this case who has “the fullness of Christianity.” I doubt the Oneness Pentecostals who condemn the rest of Christianity to hell are even brethren since they have deliberately separated themselves from the fold.
October 6, 2010 at 2:08 pm
John,
I tend to go that direction as well. It reminds me of 1 John: “those who went out from amongst us” who were never one of us. There is a difference between having distinctive beliefs and the so-called remnant ecclesiology of most OPs.
October 6, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Brian,
You’re welcome. I was able to get your point quite clearly, so there wasn’t a problem with communication on your end. Plus, we get this in seminary so I think it’s easier for me to understand than others. Yes, regarding the remnant, I think heaven will be quite an empty place if there’s only this remnant in heaven.
October 6, 2010 at 3:31 pm
One area that gets little attention is the aspect of development in doctrine. Does doctrine develop in the Church? And does not the Doctrine of the Trinity have that aspect? And was not the early Church a Living reality and authority? And as the Judeo, does not primary authority of the Church reside in the Scripture and the Spirit? So here is where we must see 1 John 2:19, both the Living, Risen Christ..always the God-Man, and the Church, something of Christ’s continued Incarnation therein. But both the Church and the doctrine of the Trinity are also part of that dogmatic authority seen in the Holy Scripture. And Christianity is a revealed faith and reality. Note, Acts 2:42 with 1 John 1:1-4. All doctrine must be measured by the Scripture itself, but in “Word & Spirit” also. But the apologetic significance of development is therefore, twofold: it is a positive demonstration of the “divinity” (incarnate life) of the Church, and it refutes the accusation of a change in doctrine, once fully given.
October 6, 2010 at 4:24 pm
OK, I put my thoughts in order in regard to Mt. 28.19 and Acts 2.38: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/matthew-28-19-andor-acts-2-38/
October 6, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Robert,
I am more than open to the idea of doctrinal development. Nevertheless, we must show our detractors that there is a valid reason for holding to the doctrine in its developed form that has continuation with its earlier form. This is what is being challenged. We are being accused of believing a corruption of “apostolic” doctrine.
October 6, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Brian,
There are several doctrines that have developed in Christian theology, even the area of Christology, i.e. Jesus as God & Man, hypostatic union, etc. But certainly the theological doctrine of the Trinity of God is a development. This does not make it less true, in fact it is even more so, as it is drawn from the apostles doctrine itself, by the Apostolic Church itself. It was always there, but just needed the extension of faith and reason over the Holy Scripture. From Irenaeus to the Fourth Century, the development of faith & reason, etc. Which is drawn from Christian faith also. Here we see the blessing of the Ecumenical Creeds also.
October 6, 2010 at 7:31 pm
CarolJean: I never assume that an OP is filled with the Spirit of Christ or earnestly seeks the God of the Bible. Willfully rejecting the God of the Bible (= the Trinity) militates against this. Now there may be OPs who don’t know any better and haven’t formed a positive heretical understanding of God yet. They could possibly be brethren. It’s once one has formed a heretical view of God and/or has rejected the orthodox view of God that I would absolutely reject them as being brethren.
To answer your final question, willful and unrepentant sin can and does separate people from the body of Christ, and this includes all kinds of sin (even intellectual ones).
October 6, 2010 at 10:25 pm
I would disagree. Willful unrepentant sin separates from communion with God, not union (according to Rom. 8.37-39). This would be to place the onus of salvation on us, when we know it’s on Him. It would also lead to, reduced, a salvation by works (and not His).
Of course, everything I am saying presupposes that someone has entered into a relationship with Jesus (of the kind that is born of an “imperishable seed”), and for whatever reason has fallen into sin or heresy — they need to be corrected/disciplined (cf. I Cor. 5). If they reject the discipline then we are to “treat” them as unbelievers, but that doesn’t mean they are (the Lord knows, He’ll make that judgement cf. I Cor. 4:1ff — not our place).
Of course I am describing a minimalist approach here (or negative one — one I don’t really like, but I think it’s the reality).
I think Luther’s Simul Iustus et Peccator” or “At Once Justified and Sinner” is apropos here. I realize that Luther is not saying we have a license to sin, and neither am I; I am just saying that I don’t want to make salvation something that “I” maintain. It is something objectively grounded in Jesus Christ, once we, by the Holy Spirit say ‘Yes’ (Gk. “ingressive” aspect) we are now participants in the life of God — even if at points (or even seasons) our lives are saying ‘No’ (to me, Biblical discipline/Church presupposes the possibility that saying ‘No’ [even in an 'objective' state of 'Yes'] is a reality . . . if it wasn’t the provisions in Scripture would not have been given — and the illustrations of I Cor.5 and 11; Acts. 5; etc. would not be present).
There is more to say on a theological front in this matter, but this is my knee-jerk response.
October 7, 2010 at 8:56 am
Theologically I would agree with Bobby, but we also must measure something of apostasy. Of course apostasy is usually a certain move away from kown orthodoxy, and is sometimes a slow movement, but not always. It is here however that the doctrine of perseverance comes in for the elect saint. But there is no perfection here in this “life”. But, the true regenerate soul will persevere in and by the grace of God in the face of Christ. But there are signs needed for this perseverance. And the desire for the “doctrine” of God is surely one of them. Truthfully I find it hard to see why any true Christian would reject the most glorious doctrine of the Trinity of God!
October 7, 2010 at 11:17 am
I agree with Fr. Robert on the Trinity; unfortunately there are people who are taken in by “wolves.” This is certainly a dynamic situation.
I think that we probably disagree (Fr. Robert and I) on “perseverance” and such (in other words, I don’t follow the “logic” or “framework” provided by the TULIP). Remember, I’m an “Evangelical Calvinist” (which by definition finds itself, historically, situated over-and against “Westminster” style Calvinism).
October 7, 2010 at 11:30 am
Bobby,
I am not really a Westminster Creed guy either, I really do tend more toward the Irish Articles 1615. Have you ever read them? And like Luther, there are times when it seems apostasy is ever so close for the elect. But in the end only God’s grace holds the election of grace. I can be very eclectic! Maybe this comes from having been raised R.Catholic, and still having some sympathy for “some” of their theology?
October 8, 2010 at 7:06 am
Brian, my blog is alphabetically arranged by topics. Here is a link to some articles I have written on Water Baptism. I think the third one is called Water Baptism in Jesus Name. Another on Baptismal conversions, Acts 4:1-18, etc.
http://evidentialfaith.blogspot.com/search/label/Water%20Baptism
October 8, 2010 at 9:48 am
Bobby,
Here are the Irish Articles 1615 from Schaff..
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xiv.html