- View SourceKerry,
I consider Boyd's book the best on the specific subject, but there is a
brief treatment that is excellent also. It's called "'Oneness
Pentecostalism' - An Evaluation" and is written by my friend Mark
McNeil. Mark graduated magna cum laude from the local Texas Bible
College (considered a prestigious UPC college), but ended up rejecting
"oneness" for orthodoxy. You can order the book for $3.00 from PILGRIM
PUBLICATIONS -- give them a call at 713-477-2329. Ask for MIKE and tell
him Bill Kilgore sent you, if you decide to order. They also have some
articles on "oneness" I believe.
Incidentally, Beisner's book is far better than Morey's. Also, I suggest
Philip Hughes' THE TRUE IMAGE and/or Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES
for excellent treatments on early modalist teachings in the early
- View SourceI ordered the booklet. Thanks for the info. Got the book too (only $13).
also http://www.spurgeon.org/ - just joined this list, so ya'll probably
already know this, smile.
New to this topic as well, the Trinitarian argument that caught my attention
shows the incidents in the Bible where we see God revealed in more than one
person at the same time. Like when Jesus was being baptized by John the
Baptist. Here we see Jesus, we see the Holy Spirit (in the form of dove),
and we hear the Father's voice. The other striking example to me is when
Jesus prays in the Bible. Is He praying to Himself? "Father, take this cup
from me." "Father, into my hand I commit my Spirit."
I will hopefully learn more once receiving these documents in the mail.
Started a little filing system (folders on Trinity, Eternal Security,
Heaven, Hell, etc.). Please pray that God will help me with my time
management, that I can be more productive in my reading. At times after
working a full-time job, I come home and waste time, when I could be
From: William Kilgore <thinkman@...>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 9:20 AM
Subject: [apologetics] Re: Modalism
>From: William Kilgore <thinkman@...>
>I consider Boyd's book the best on the specific subject, but there is a
>brief treatment that is excellent also. It's called "'Oneness
>Pentecostalism' - An Evaluation" and is written by my friend Mark
>McNeil. Mark graduated magna cum laude from the local Texas Bible
>College (considered a prestigious UPC college), but ended up rejecting
>"oneness" for orthodoxy. You can order the book for $3.00 from PILGRIM
>PUBLICATIONS -- give them a call at 713-477-2329. Ask for MIKE and tell
>him Bill Kilgore sent you, if you decide to order. They also have some
>articles on "oneness" I believe.
>Incidentally, Beisner's book is far better than Morey's. Also, I suggest
>Philip Hughes' THE TRUE IMAGE and/or Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES
>for excellent treatments on early modalist teachings in the early
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>Apologetics� is an outreach of W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries.
>http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 or http://witness.base.org
>1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3
- View SourceHey Derrick,
-->To say that loving the person in the UPC would be somewhat redundant but
-->nevertheless, extremely important.
Excellent point. I've been guilty of getting to 'wrapped up' in 'the
argument' in times past and usually try to approach a discussion softly (but
still with the truth- I'm an extremely BLUNT person most of the times and
don't like to tapdance around the issue). The one thing that I usually find
is a knee-jerk reaction from most people who share divergent views on the
'essentials' of the Christian faith that gets them running off on a tangent,
quoting tons of scripture (primarily an emotional reaction). Sometimes it's
hard to keep 'focused' during all of this because A. they're usually making
all types of fallacies in their speech and you want to address some of the
major ones which are obviously the cause of their misunderstanding on an
isue and B. you don't want to feel like you're getting 'pummelled with
scripture'. All things can be approached in love, but at the same time we
need to stay aware of 'where we are' in the argument so we dont' lose focus
on THE SOUL (and not necessarily on proving our point, although the two are
--> I know one of the verses they use a lot is Acts 2:38. I got an aticle
-->from Christian Research Institute that helped lay out a few points. I
-->will have to look for it. They do love the Lord and we must be able to
-->share openly and directly with them with love and sensitivity as the
-->Holy Spirit leads.
I can honestly say that every UPC person I've met (there have been a few
dozen) has shown a general love for the Lord which would shame most
'orthodox' Christians that I know. Re-analyzing that though, I sometimes
wonder if that 'love' they demonstrate is genuine love for the Lord because
of what He has done or due to the legalistic lifestyle that they are forced
into. Thoughts anyone?
Harold O.J. Brown makes a good observation near the end of his chapter on
modalism/sabellianism in his book 'Heresies' - he says that there are a
great number of differences between believers of that time period and those
who willfully reject the doctrine of the Trinity today- those in the early
church were geniuinely trying to understand the doctrine of the incarnation
while most of those who reject the trinity today do so because they simply
dont' want to believe.
--> I have learned to separate the person as an individual and the beliefs
-->of the church (any church for that matter) and deal with them as an
Very true indeed. I remember a few years ago talking with an girl at my
school who was (at the time) a Jehovah's Witness. Strangely enough though,
she believed in a literal, fire and brimstone hell, so even though their
organization has a facade of 'unity' on the surface doctrinally, just like
everyone else, they have a diversity of beliefs from individual to
individual (even if they never make their beliefs public for fear of
ostracization from the rest of the group). I remember she and I had a nice
3 hour talk in the library, although she got kinda upset that I said the
Watchtower Societies leaders were false prophets (we got into the 1914,
1915, 1918, 1919, 1925, 1929, etc.. thing ). Today, praise God, she's
saved. She passed word through a friend that part of the thing that helped
her to see the truth was the convo we had. Our efforts are never in vain,
even when we thing we've done a 'horrible' job, just be open, ready and
equipped to share the truth in love.
- View SourceKerry,
I would tend to disagree with the idea that there is any "difference" in
the early believers "struggling to understand" & modern believers who
"just don't believe the Trinity." Yesterday's modalists were just as
commited (more so) than today's UPC -- further, such actually had a
BETTER understanding of what they were really teaching than the modern
The modern UPC is "anti-trinitarian" only because they first erected a
false construct of 'logic' : Matt. 28:18 + Acts 2:38 = the "name" of
"Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit" must be "Jesus". While modern UPC leaders
(like David Bernard) have of course developed this into full-blown
Modalistic Monarchianism, the average layperson in the UPC is far
Basically, the average UPC member is taught from day 1 that trinitarians
are TRITHEISTS. The sad thing is that MANY ARE! Look at men like the
late Finis J. Dake, or the Charismatics like Copeland. These are
significant examples because many UPC "converts" come from AofG &
Charismatic ranks, where these teachers are popular.
Step 2 involves the "logical" construct referred to above : the "Matt.
28:18 + Acts 2:38" equation.
At this point, the UPC member is CONVINCED - period. Any "deeper"
modalist material, such as Bernard's ONENESS OF GOD, simply REINFORCES
what they ALREADY BELIEVE. When the average UPC member picks up THE
ONENESS OF GOD, they already have instilled the two faulty
presuppositions above. Every other scripture is going to be "filtered"
through that grid.
Thus, in my opinion, it is essential to FIRST "play Samson" to those two
"pillars" of modern "oneness" teaching : (1) trinitarianism, when
properly understood after orthodoxy, is NOT tritheism; and (2) Matt.
28:18 and Acts 2:38 do NOT form an iron-clad equation that requires a
>From here, I think one of the main points against "oneness" teaching isthe DOCETISM implicit in the teaching. The trinitarian Jesus, again
rightly understood, is a REAL man who was really born, lived, died --
FOR REAL! Of course, this is a great mystery (1 Tim. 3:16). UPC
teachers, however, present us with a Jesus who was "acting" - that is,
simply "putting on a different mask for the next act," so to speak. When
one gets deep into a theological matter like the atonement - it will be
discovered that "oneness" teachers are logically compelled to water-down
Jesus' death in the extreme. Jesus' REAL humanity is effectively DENIED
- the ancient heresy of DOCETISM.
- View SourceHey Kerry, I did not want in any way to seem like I would compromise
the truth for the sake of "love" and "unity". I believe to do so would
be a great mistake.
A. they're usually making
>all types of fallacies in their speech and you want to address some ofthe
>major ones which are obviously the cause of their misunderstanding onan
>isue and B. you don't want to feel like you're getting 'pummelled withVery true. I am not one who is good at a face to face "arguement" with
some just because that is the way my personality is. I find it real
helpful to write down some of the quotes and/or scripture reference of
there arguement and address them at a later time (especially if they are
an acquaintance and I will more than likely converse again with them).
Sometimes this cannot be done. "The I'll get back to you later" thing.
Kerry, I don't remember if you said you were talking with someone
yourself or if you were just doing research.
To any and everyone, what do you all know about the ICC --International
Church of Christ. My understanding is that they are cultic in the way
they do certain things, but are they necesarily a cult?
- View SourceDerrick,
YOU ASK: "To any and everyone, what do you all know about the ICC
--International Church of Christ. My understanding is that they are
cultic in the way they do certain things, but are they necesarily a
I checked with a friend who is an "expert" on the CofC (he has written
several books on the movement). He affirmed what I thought: the ICofC is
the new name for the BOSTON CofC. And yes, this group is cultic.