Please note, I updated this post on 9/26/09 to make some needed changes and clarifications per reader feedback.
Given my last post, I thought it would be helpful to examine some of the historic Christian creeds, showing which parts are acceptable to Oneness Pentecostals (black font), which parts are not (strikethrough), which parts are questionable (red font), followed by some brief comments.
A little bit about my method: The parts I have struck out, I have struck out because I cannot agree with the terminology. The parts I have kept, I have kept because I can agree with the terminology, even if I do not mean the same thing by those words as the drafters of these creeds meant by those words. Furthermore, by striking out some words, I did not necessarily intend to create a new context, so do not try to read through the creeds using only the words that remain, thinking that it will make sense on its own. In some cases it will, but in other cases it will not.
I’ll begin with the Apostles’ Creed:
Apostles’ Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell 1. The third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church2;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
1 If this only means Jesus went to the place of the dead, I think it is acceptable. If, however, it means Jesus descended into the place of hell, it is not.
2 As I understand it, this is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church, but rather to the universal church. This creed was a response to the Gnostics who taught that salvation was only for a select few. In opposition to this, the creed believes the church is universal (catholic).
I think this creed can be affirmed by Oneness Pentecostals without much issue.
The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325)
We believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father,
that is, of the substance of the Father,
God of God, light of light, true God of true God,
begotten not made3, of the same substance with the Father,
through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;
who for us men and our salvation descended,
was incarnate, and was made man,
suffered and rose again the third day,
ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost.
Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance, or that the Son of God4 is created, or mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes.
3 The purpose of this clause is to affirm the eternality of Christ’s deity. While Oneness Pentecostals also affirm the eternality of Christ’s deity, we would not say His deity is “begotten,” and thus I have struck out that word, while leaving “not made.” Some may find fault with this decision, because on a Oneness view “Son of God” refers exclusively to God’s human mode of existence, which is, by all accounts, made. I decided to leave the phrase in, however, since the context that follows makes it clear that Jesus’ deity is in view: “by whom all things are made.” This refers to Jesus’ pre-existent deity, not His humanity, and thus I chose to keep the affirmation that He was “not made.”
4 I struck this, not because I do not believe that Christ’s deity is eternal, but because as a Oneness Pentecostal, we would not refer to Christ’s pre-existent deity as “Son of God.”
Most of this creed is perfectly acceptable to a Oneness Pentecostal.
The Constantinopolitan Nicene Creed (A.D. 381)
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all worlds;
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made5, being of one substance with the Father,
by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary,
and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life;
who proceeds from the Father and the Son;
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;
who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
5 The purpose of this clause is to affirm the eternality of Christ’s deity. While Oneness Pentecostals also affirm the eternality of Christ’s deity, we would not say His deity is “begotten,” and thus I have struck out that word, while leaving “not made.” Some may find fault with this decision, because on a Oneness view “Son of God” refers exclusively to God’s human mode of existence, which is, by all accounts, made. I decided to leave the phrase in, however, since the context that follows makes it clear that Jesus’ deity is in view: “by whom all things are made.” This refers to Jesus’ pre-existent deity, not His humanity, and thus I chose to keep the affirmation that He was “not made.”
This creed has a few more problems, but since it is just an expansion of the Nicene Creed, it still has more chicken than bones.
Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451)
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Not much objectionable here. This is my favorite creedal formulation!
The Athanasian Creed (~6th century?)
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.
But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; And shall give account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
Obviously this one has a lot more problems than the others. The Athanasian Creed is explicitly Trinitarian.
I imagine some of you might make different decisions than I did regarding what is acceptable, questionable, and unacceptable. If so, I would be interested in knowing what they are and why you hold the opinion you do.
Thinking to Believe 
September 17, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I could agree with “begotten of all ages of the Father” but would cut out the following phrase “according to the Godhead”. Because according to God’s foreknowledge, Jesus was begotten of a virgin before the world was created.
But I prefer your cuts better.
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 12:43 am
The “descended into hell” has translational issues I believe and can be hell, sheol, dead etc.
The Apostle’s creed is especially interesting with the current translation as many in the Anglican church (and others) believe that He (Jesus) really did descend into hell. This I believe is incorrect (although I haven’t really looked into it that well and am taking someone else’s word on it…) One reason to re-look at them.
Thinking about it, it seems slightly strange that modern churches do not create their own creeds (and so have “American Creed” or “British Creed”…)
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 10:34 am
Carol,
Yes, “begotten of the Father before all worlds” might be acceptable if they were only referring to God’s foreknowledge, but they weren’t. They were referring to an eternal begottenness according to His deity, and I can’t accept that as a Oneness person. Indeed, there are some Trinitarians who cannot accept this language because it is unbiblical. Scripture only connects the Son’s begottenness with His birth and incarnation (human existence, not divine).
Jason
Jason
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 10:40 am
Scott,
Yes, I have also read that the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed was to combat Docetism and Gnosticism, which said that Jesus didn’t really die. To affirm that He did, the author(s) said he descended into the place of the dead.
What might count against this theory, however, is that just before this phrase it is said that Jesus was “dead.” So if “descended into hell” means nothing more than that Jesus really died, the creed would be affirming this two times, back-to-back. That doesn’t seem likely.
In the Athanasian Creed, however, I don’t think there can be any doubt as to the meaning of that same phrase, because there it is placed between Jesus’ suffering and resurrection. It must be referring to His death.
Jason
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Mr. Dulle,
With all due respect, it’s pretty laughable to suggest that a Oneness Pentecostal can affirm either the Nicene Creeds of 325, 381, or the Chalcedonian Creed of 451. Even with the deletions you’ve made, these creeds are incompatible with your theological system. For example, when it comes to the Creed of 325:
“the only begotten of the Father,
that is, of the substance of the Father”
Last time I checked, Oneness Pentecostals DO NOT believe “the only begotten [Son]” was “begotten of the substance of the Father”, rather, He was ‘made’ by the Father and begotten of the substance of Mary. The ‘begettal’, for you, is the Incarnation, and the ‘begotten’, a man. If the Son of God truly is BEGOTTEN of the Father’s SUBSTANCE, then He must be equal in essence with the Father (ie. spirit, deity, God) and therefore, eternal.
“Not made?”
Well, Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Spirit/Father/deity ‘begat’ the flesh/Son/man, which is technically a ‘making’, not a begettal. Your interpretation is essentially an Arian butchering of the word ‘begotten’. If the ‘begotten’ is not that which (not who)the begettor is, then the ‘begotten’ is not ‘begotten’ at all, but rather ‘made’.
“Consubstantial with the Father?”
Something solitary, unitary cannot be ‘consubstantial’ with itself.
“made incarnate”
Obviously, everything written above this verse of the Nicene Creed of 325 refers to the situation BEFORE the Incarnation. Can Oneness Pentecostals really affirm all of those verses above “was incarnate” as being true before 4 AD? Don’t think so.
“Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance, or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
This is EXACTLY, to a ‘T’, what Oneness Pentecostals believe about the Son of God.
These problems in your interpretation persist in the 381 version, amid others.
As for your interpretation of the Chalcedonian Creed, you are deceptive, Mr. Dulle. You did not quote all of it. You (deliberately, it appears) LEFT OUT the verse that says, “consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead”, just before you quoted “consubstantial with us according to the Manhood.” You quite obviously did this because it demonstrates that the fathers who drafted this creed understood consubstantial to be descriptive of a unity of essence, not a confusion of Person.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the problems associated with your butchering of these creeds.
Cassius
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Jason,
Isn’t it strange that the apostles and their disciples had such a poor understanding of Christianity and the proper meaning of the Scriptures? Luckily, we are here to correct their errors.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Cassius,
I don’t agree with everything you have said, but I thank you for your comments. They cause me to clarify some things about the principles I used when doing this exercise, as well as to make some adjustments. You’ll have to forgive me, but I did this whole exercise in an hour, and your comments make it clear that some of my decisions were not as well-thought-out as they should have been, and that my methodology may not have been entirely consistent. I may need to take a second look at some of my decisions.
It is quite clear from my comments that I do not think a Oneness Pentecostal can accept the creeds in toto. With the exception of the Apostles’ Creed, I have at least one strikethrough in every creed (and even in the Apostles’ Creed I indicate that one phrase is questionable).
But I am not of the opinion that if one cannot agree with every single doctrinal point of a creed, that they must reject it in toto (as even Trinitarians feel free to strike out certain phrases of the creeds without dismissing them altogether). As the title of the post implies, my approach is to take the chicken and toss the bones.
When it came to determining what I struck and what I didn’t, there are two ways I could have gone about it. One way was to strike a phrase because I cannot agree with the meaning of the phrase as intended by those who drafted the creed itself. Another way was to set aside the way the phrase would have been understood by the drafters, and simply judge whether or not I could agree with the actual words themselves, understood from a Oneness Pentecostal perspective (if I could, I did not strike it out). I tended toward the latter method.
Your first example from the Nicene Creed is a case in point (“the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father”). I was conflicted about whether or not to strike this because I know what the drafters meant (the context makes it clear that they are talking about the Son being begotten according to His divine nature from eternity), but I also know that it can be taken in a non-Trinitarian way as well (particularly once “God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten” is struck from the text). Oneness believers fully agree that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. We simply disagree that this is according to both His humanity and His deity. As for saying Jesus is “of the substance of the Father,” Oneness Pentecostals mean this more literally than do Trinitarians! Of course, one could point out that “of the substance” implies “from” (Grk “ek”) rather than “identical to,” and this is inconsistent with Oneness theology. There is much debate over what this phrase meant, but it seems to have meant only that Jesus shared the nature of the Father. Oneness Pentecostals would agree with that. Indeed, historically speaking quite a number of bishops found this creed objectionable on the basis that they thought it implied modalism!
Having said all of this, as I re-read the text, I noticed something that I didn’t notice before that should be eliminated: “that is”. By saying “the only begotten of the Father,
that is, of the substance of the Father” the drafter meant to clarify the source of Jesus’ begottenness: from the Father. Given that the context makes it clear that they are referring to His being begotten according to His divine nature, I would at least have to strike “that is” from the Nicene Creed as well.
And I agree with your point about “not made.” I originally left it in to affirm that the deity of Christ is eternal. After all, if I struck out both “begotten” and “not made,” it might sound as if I was denying that Jesus was begotten according to His deity, and denying that He was eternal (since the point of the phrase was to declare the eternal deity of Christ). While I deny that He is eternall begotten according to His divine nature, I also deny that His deity was created. But, given the words that remain, and given the fact that I am interpreting “the only begotten of the Father” to refer to Christ’s humanity, the fact that the very next words are “not made” could be taken to mean that I am saying Jesus’ humanity was not made, when clearly it was.
This issue brings up another point about my method. I did not always intend for the remaining words to be read in a new context. By striking out “begotten” in “begotten not made” I did not intend for someone to re-read the creed as, “and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father…not made,” leaving out “God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten” in the place of the elipsis. In other words, I didn’t intend to create a new context. I struck out “begotten” and left “not made,” and expected the remaining words to be understood agaisnt the backdrop of their original context, not the new one (in which case it would be understood that while I denied Jesus’ eternal begottenness, I was not denying His divine eternality).
You are mistaken about the final anathema of the Nicene Creed encapsulating “to a T” what Oneness people believe. The context concerns Arianism. Arius and his ilk said that there was a time when Jesus’ deity, the Logos, did not exist.” So the topic concerns Christ’s deity. And Oneness Pentecostals do not affirm that Christ’s deity was created. We affirm that Jesus’ deity is the eternal person of YHWH. The only possible phrase that we might need to strike out is the phrase, “or that the Son of God is created,” because on the Oneness view “Son” refers to God’s human existence, which is not eternal. I did not strike that out because I know that by “Son of God” the drafters are referring to Jesus’ deity, and I did not want to communicate the idea that I am denying the eternal deity of Christ. In other words, I was allowing for what I would consider inaccurate terminology in order to support the larger point. But maybe I should strike it out since the terminology, apart from its context and intent, is objectionable to Oneness believers. If I could add words, I would simply insert “deity of the” here: “or that the deity of the Son of God…”.
As for calling me deceptive, don’t you think you should inquire before you make such a lofty accusation? I do see that the phrase was left out, but that was not intentional. I copied and pasted the creed from http://www.theopedia.com/Chalcedonian_Creed. They left out that phrase in their version, and hence it was left out in mine. An honest mistake on their part, and mine. It is fixed now.
Jason
LikeLike
September 21, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Arthur,
I can smell sarcasm a mile away, but I’m not sure who is the ojbect of your sarcasm: me or Cassius. Either way, it was funny.
Jason
LikeLike
September 21, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Jason,
I think someone mentioned it before, but I too am a bit confused as to why you see “begotten not made” as incompatible with Oneness Pentecostal theology.
In my thinking that would be a part of the creed I would seek to keep, especially as it was a response to Arian teaching that Jesus was the first creation of God. Can you please shed some light on why you reject this phrase?
Thanks
LikeLike
September 22, 2009 at 12:20 pm
D.C. Lake,
Originally I only struck out “begotten” in the phrase “begotten not made” in the Nicene Creed. I did so because the context is referring to Christ’s deity. Oneness Pentecostals would not say Christ’s deity was begotten, although we would say it is not made (it’s eternal), so I left “not made” in there.
Cassius, however, raised an issue over this. He knows that from a Oneness perspective, the preceding context which speaks about Jesus being “the only begotten of the Father” would be interpreted as a reference to His humanity, not His deity. In light of this, by only striking out “begotten” and leaving in “not made,” it sounds like I am affirming that Jesus’ humanity was not made. So in short, while Oneness Pentecostals affirm that Jesus’ humanity is begotten and made, and that His deity is unbegotten and not made. We would never say of His humanity that it is both begotten and not made, nor of His deity that it is both begotten and not made. “Begotten” applies to His humanity, while “not made” applies to His deity. The creed, however, is applying both to His deity.
This raised the whole difficulty involved in deciding what to strike, and deciding what to keep. There are different things to consider, such as the original intent of the authors, or the new context that would be created by striking out certain words. Sometimes, there’s the case where I agree with the concept, but would use different terminology. For example, in the anathema of the Nicene Creed it opposes those who say “the Son of God is created.” They are using “Son of God” to refer to Christ’s deity. While a Oneness Pentecostal would not use such a term to refer to Christ’s pre-existent deity, we absolutely agree with the purpose of this clause: as an affirmation that Christ’s deity is eternal. Again, Cassius complained about this, so I crossed out “Son of God” and put a footnote explaining myself. But I would have rather just replaced that phrase with “His deity” or something similar. There’s just no perfect way to go about it. I may even take a second stab at it.
Jason
LikeLike
September 23, 2009 at 7:58 am
[…] You can read the rest of dissection of the historic creeds: Historic Creeds: Identifying What’s Chicken and What’s Bones. […]
LikeLike
September 25, 2009 at 8:04 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
As a student of the sacred word of God most High I do not endorse no creed, nor statement of faith, nor document of men which contradict the sacred scriptures. Therefore, I denounce every creed that was formulated by the Catholic church as false and not worthy of endorsement by those whom truly follow the Lord Jesus.
And I advise you and others to denounce every aspect of these creeds and follow the sacred word exclusively.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth grace, wisdom, and peace upon your soul alway. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 25, 2009 at 10:56 am
Marquest,
As a student of the sacred word of God most High I do not endorse anything written by anyone outside the word of God, and thus I must denounce what you have written here. I advise you to denounce your own written statements as well, and confess only the words in Scripture!
You’ll have to pardon my sarcasm, but what you have written shows me that you have not truly interacted with what I have said on the issue of creeds, or the purpose of this post.
I do not believe any creed is authoritative, or on par with Scripture. But as I wrote in the preceding blog post, a creed can be a useful, concise summary of the Christian faith. The idea of creedal confessions goes back to Scripture itself. And indeed, even those who do not accept the historic creeds have creeds of their own by a different name: “articles of faith” or “doctrinal statements.”
The fact of the matter is that even you have a creed, even if it is not written down and formalized. Whenever someone asks you what you believe, surely you provide them with a summary of your beliefs. You don’t just quote Scripture (or at least I hope not).
The purpose of going through the historic creeds is not to say anyone is bound by the creeds. It is to show that there are many truths in these creeds that we can agree with. We don’t need to adopt the position which says that if there is anything mistaken in a creed, that we need to denounce the entire thing. If I don’t agree with 1 or 2 issues in a church’s doctrinal statement, that doesn’t mean I have to denounce the entire thing as false. No, I simply point out the parts I disagree with, and confess the rest to be true.
Jason
LikeLike
September 25, 2009 at 11:21 am
Marquest wrote,
Marquest, that is precisely what Jason is arguing. He doesn’t support any statement of faith which contradicts the scriptures.
Any statement or creed which contradicts the scriptures must be rejected by those who believe the scriptures are authoritative. If Rome says lying is a sin, we agree with that statement because it conforms to biblical teaching. When Rome says Jesus is the eternal Son of God, we reject it because it is unbiblical.
Perhaps you meant something different than what you wrote. Care to clarify?
LikeLike
September 26, 2009 at 6:49 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
Again, statements of faith, creeds, doctrinal affirmations are not to be adhered to by the one true church of Jesus Christ. And as a student of sacred scripture I do not endorse creeds, statements of faith or religious affirmations of any so-called religious or governmental entity outside of the word of God. Therefore, I disagree with your statement that creeds can be useful which certainly contradict holy scripture. Only scripture and scripture alone must be put forth to explain the beliefs of the christian community.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth power, grace, and love upon you alway. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 26, 2009 at 6:55 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
It is written in the sacred word of God most High
“Of an unclean thing what can be cleansed? and from that thing which is false what truth can come?” (Ecclesiasticus 34:4)
Therefore, I once again disagree with your statement that we can pick out the truthful points from creeds, doctrinal statements, and religious affirmations to support truth. Because the truth which is contained in creeds (which are unscriptural) is not pure truth but a contaminated or adulterated truth not worthy to be endorse by the true disciple of the living and true God.
May the God enlighten your hearts and minds by his holy Spirit to pursue pure truth. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Marquest, you either don’t understand Jason’s rebuttal or you are purposely ignoring it. Your follow-up posts merely restate your contradictory claim without engaging Jason’s argument.
None of the sentences you write are found in the Bible, so we must reject them, right?
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Greetings! Brother Dulle and Scalla
I only use words of scripture and scripture alone and nothing else. No creed, statement of faith, bylaws, or doctrinal summaries do I use to enunciate my beliefs as any true follower of Jesus Christ should do.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Marquest wrote,
Marquest, if you expect your words to be taken seriously, I gently suggest you try to engage the argument rather than repeat your views time and again.
You DO NOT use words of scripture and scripture alone! If using WORDS are essential, then using SENTENCES are equally essential. No sentence you’ve written is anywhere in the Bible, yet you use unbiblical sentences to describe what you believe the Bible to teach. You are thus contradicting yourself.
Moreover, I’ve shown in more detail on another thread why your position is irrational and unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you shouldn’t think your argument will gain traction by simply repeating yourself.
On your website, you write:
Marquest, the Bible NOWHERE has the phrase knowing the Lord Jesus as their God and Saviour. That doctrine is taught, but those words, as you use them, are nowhere found in the Bible.
Please answer this question: If God’s words should only be used, then why not His sentences?
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 10:00 am
Greetings! Scalla
As I said before in another blog when a man is moved by the Holy Spirit to expain or interpret scripture then his explainations are equivalent to inspired scripture. Therefore, when I or anyone whom is moved by the Spirit of God to explain scripture then their explainations are equalivalent to scripture.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 10:15 am
Marquest wrote,
You’re still not engaging the argument, so I’m left to conclude you do not understand it.
Whether prophecy is equivalent to the biblical text is not the subject. Moreover, it it is self-serving. If you claim divine inspiration for everything you say about the Bible, others can claim the same thing. Consequently, their “doctrinal statement” is just as inspired as yours. And if that is the case, you have no basis to object, except to challenge their inspiration. But if you’re challenging their inspiration, then you’re not challenging their “unbiblical” statements; you’re questioning their calling. Therefore, you’re objection is misdirected.
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 10:49 am
Greetings! Scalla
One’s explaination of the scriptures must accord with the scriptures of truth which is the sole determiner of what statements or beliefs are inspired of God or not.
Therefore, I can and will continue to condemn any and every statement that do not accord with the scriptures of truth.
May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 11:08 am
Then there’s no objection to Jason’s post. That’s all he and I are saying. That isn’t, however, what you originally wrote, but we’ll leave it at that.
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 11:50 am
Greetings! Scalla
As I said before I do apologize for misunderstanding what you and Jason has said in your prior posts yet I am hesistant to utilize the non scriptural writings of creeds, articles of faith, bylaws, and doctrinal summaries as to not appear to endorse those documents or beliefs of false religion.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon your soul always. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
October 9, 2009 at 9:02 am
what a great site and informative posts, I will add a backlink and bookmark your site. Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
January 20, 2018 at 11:26 am
Is Dulle the Pope of Oneness? Writing what dogma is and what people should believe is Catholic suppression. His origins are Catholic Creeds. Oneness believer beware!
LikeLike
January 24, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Mutai, how is assessing the historic creeds from a Oneness perspective to see what parts of them are compatible with Oneness theology and what parts are not constitute “writing what dogma is and what people should believe”? How does that make me into a self-professing pope of oneness?
LikeLike