Modalism Revisted: Phillips, Craig & Dean

Modalism probably hasn’t been a hot topic lately, but there is some new (to me at least) and concrete information on Phillips, Craig and Dean’s position on their position on the Trinity. If you search and read the various apologetic websites you’ll find how tough it was for many to get straight answers on their position on the doctrine of the Trinity. The PC&D website, for example, doesn’t have a statement of faith.

Taking a look at their church websites doesn’t make finding their beliefs too much easier. On Dan Dean’s The Heartland Church I can find no statement of faith. As of 04/01/2010 there is now a statement of faith. At Shawn Craig’s church South County Christian Center under “about us” you actually can read their statement of faith. It says this about God:

We believe in one God revealed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19; John 1:14; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:4-6) [emphasis mine]

Lastly, at Randy Phillips’ church Promise Land West under “About Us” then “Belief Statement” under the heading “The Godhead” reads:

(I John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 1 Tim 3:16) We believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority. We believe in the Father who is God Himself, Creator of the universe. {Gen 1:1; John 1:1} We believe that Jesus is the Son of God. (Col 2:9) [emphasis mine, underline in original]

The red flags are the words “revealed as” and “manifestation” that have caused folks to question whether or not these guys are non-Trinitarian. But without coming right out and denying it it’s possible though not accurate to use a play on words and skirt the issue. At least skirting the issue in so far as to satisfy someone who has not really looked into modalism or much theology. None of the above information is really new though.

Promise Land church which is pastored by Randy Phillips’ father (I believe) which birthed Phillips’ current church Promise Land West has finally given a definitive position. You can read their “What We Believe” page and get similar texts like the ones I mentioned above.

So here’s the kicker. If you go to “Resources” then to the Enquirer’s Handbook link at the Promise Land church site you’ll find that handbook which is a 100+ page pdf file very helpful. Finally, a direct answer. Now, we can’t necessarily apply these beliefs to the other two members since they are not part of that church, but it’s very telling.

Let’s look at some quotes from the handbook.

Since the death of John and the other eleven original apostles, many concepts and teachings have arisen that do not necessarily coincide with the “one God” teaching of the early church. In the year A.D. 180, Tertullian began using the term “trinity” from which was born the Catholic doctrine of three Gods, co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the year A.D. 325 incorporated the “doctrine of the trinity” into the Catholic Church where it has remained ever since, and most Protestant churches have accepted this doctrine without thorough examination. The “trinity”, however, generates confusion and is not in total harmony with the Scriptures. To say that there are three separate persons who somehow comprise “one God” is like trying to connect opposing sides of two magnets. When you add 1+1+1, it must equal three; and there cannot, under any circumstances, be more than one God.

One of the primary sources of confusion in this matter is related to the word “persons.” The doctrine of the trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three “persons” who make up one God. In actuality, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three manifestations of one God. This word manifestation means “to appear”, and it is quite scriptural. The Bible tells us that, “God was manifest in the flesh . . .” (I Timothy 3:16). In other words, God appeared in the flesh (as a son). [emphasis mine] Pg. 60

It also looks like there is a problem of separating Christ’s natures. This must go along with the modalism so certain Scriptures can be explained.

On the other hand, it was His human nature which required Him to eat, to sleep and to pray. As a human being (flesh), Jesus Christ was basically weak. Jesus made this clear when He spoke to Peter saying: “. . . The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh [human nature] is weak” (Mark 14:38).

The flesh, as a result of its sinful tendencies, is constantly warring with and resisting the Spirit. But despite these facts, Jesus came “. . . in the likeness of sinful flesh . . .” (Romans 8:3). He did not create a super body, so to speak, that would protect Him from sin and weakness; He was human flesh just as you and I are.

It was for this reason that Jesus had to pray. If this is confusing, remember that it was the flesh (human nature) praying to the omnipresent Spirit. In one incident, Jesus had to lay His hands upon a man the second time in order for the man to be healed (Mark 8:23-25). This was due to the weakness of the flesh; otherwise, one time would have been sufficient. Without prayer and fasting, His flesh, is human nature, would never have remained sinless and pure or have been strong enough to die on Calvary (Hebrews 5:7). His need for prayer was made evident in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:44-46).

The dual nature of Jesus is puzzling to some because they view the two natures as two persons. As a man, Jesus was the Son of God; He was flesh. But as God Almighty, Jesus was Spirit robed in flesh and existing everywhere else at once. There are two natures and not two persons. For example, you possess a human nature (your body) and a spiritual nature (your spirit). Whether your flesh and spirit remain intact or are separated, you are still only one person. The same is true of God. Pg. 63

I just pulled a few quotes out, but there are more in the book. I’m actually glad that the issues are finally spelled out so clearly. I wonder if the rest of the band agrees?

Mark

Let's connect!

tagged as , , in apologetics,Christianity,Church Issues,Gospel,heresy,theology

{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Josh December 20, 2007 at 11:37 am

Here’s the question thats always bugged me. What if–and this applies to any group–they have a few solid songs you like?

2 johnMark December 20, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Josh,

In a way I struggle with that too. If the song is an original then I don’t know what to think. Maybe warn people who may sing it? The song itself can’t really be solid if it’s from a heretical viewpoint.

One thing I would not do, however, is buy any of their music.

Mark

3 Josh December 21, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Well I don’t anymore.

My rule of thumb is I listen to anything I like. I generally cross songs with bad theology off the play list.

Of course, I still don’t know what to think about non-Christian music from ‘back in the day’.

4 Timo Ofurse January 19, 2008 at 11:34 pm

I am well aquainted with these three guys, Phillips, Craig & Dean. I know them to be devout christians, faithful to the LORD, to their family and true to their church.
I am dismayed that there are a few who seem to get some kind of strange satisfaction in attacking them regarding their Biblical description of GOD. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to feel they have a corner on explaining GOD. I choose to believe what the apostle Paul wrote; “We see through a glass darkly.” I don’t believe anyone of us can fully understand or explain the Godhead.
We as christians are “to love the brethren.”
Let love abound!

5 johnMark January 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Tim,

I do understand your concern. Did you read the booklet I linked to above or at least the parts I quoted? You will see that it is the Modalists who are saying the Trinitarians have a doctrine of three gods. And more is said in their booklet.

So, have you said the same to them as you’ve had to us in your above comment? They’ve made no less a positive assertion that attacks Trinitarians. If not, they why come here charging me with having a “corner on explaining God” when they do the same thing?

Do you deny what I said about the position of their doctrine?

I do love my brethren as well as my those that aren’t my brethren. And to those who aren’t I am to proclaim the true God and His Gospel to them.

Mark

6 Julie Votaw June 10, 2008 at 10:59 pm

There are some 500 verses in the Bible that support the concept of the Trinity…See notes in the Finis Dake Bible for a list. This is really about not wanting persecution, so they deny the power of the Holy Spirit. The real Jesus of the Bible is only found in relationship to the Godhead. Allah had no son…The Bibical Father, Son and Holy Spirit relationship exposes that Allah is not the God of the Bible. 1 John states that you cannot have the Father without the Son…this exposes that Judism cannot have Father God as they could before Jesus. John chapter 4 relates that the Father seeks worshippers to worship in The Spirit and in Truth (Jesus). I am saddened that PC&D are so lost in that they are serving another Jesus that does not have a Father or a Spirit to be sent to comfort us. Anti-Christ comes in his own name, and has no connection with the Father or Spirit…this is what many Christians worship as Jesus when they stop reading their word, join with the Great Whore rather than the Precious Holy Spirit, and do ANYTHING rather than be persecuted!

7 johnMark June 11, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Julie,

I wish more folks knew about and would stand boldly in opposition to PC&D.

Thanks,

Mark

8 Janet Aldrich March 20, 2009 at 8:58 am

I’m with Josh. I learned of their non-orthodox (little “o”, of course) and it really breaks my heart. Their music really meant a lot to me. “This is How it Feels to be Free” and “I Need You” resonated powerfully with me.

But now I feel a check in the Spirit that I shouldn’t be listening to their music, and it’s been really tough.

What bothers me most is the effort they’ve gone to in order to keep their position quiet. If they really believed this (modallism and all that’s attendant with it) then by their standards, WE’RE not the believers. Shouldn’t they be witnessing to US, instead of hiding what they believe? Apparently it’s more important to sell lots of records than be honest and face whatever arises.

9 johnMark March 20, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Janet,

I agree with you that they should not consider us as fellow Christians. The handbook I linked to above says the Trinity is a belief in three gods. It also looks like they believe that water baptism is a must to be saved.

So, have these modalists the same problem with money ahead of their own beliefs?

Interesting.

Mark

10 Frank Turk April 15, 2009 at 6:57 am

That stinkin’ Constanteen. If he wasn’t the pawn of the Pope, what a wonderful world.

11 jox77 August 25, 2009 at 10:48 am

The earliest creeds affirm the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. For example, both the Roman Symbol and the Apostles’ Creed were written way long before Constantine. The subsequent church Councils only affirmed what was already Christian belief.

12 Bobby S. February 28, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Where do you get your information on them believing that water baptism is a must to be saved? I checked each chruch website and they each state water baptism as a commandment, not a step to salvation. Before making comments like you have been, check your facts and don’t take everything out of context. Your really trying to stretch it. They state that God was manifested in three persons, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit which is Biblical.

13 Mark Lamprecht February 28, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Bobby, please re-read what I said about baptism and salvation. I said it – It also looks like they believe that water baptism is a must to be saved. If you read the position on baptism in the book I referenced you will see why I said that. See the part of the book on baptism here: http://www.promiselandchurch.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=350%3Achapter-6-water-baptism&catid=47&Itemid=128&showall=1

Among the various statements on baptism that seem to indicate water baptism is necessary to salvation is this one.

A person must repent and be baptized in water to apply the blood of Jesus to his heart. There is no other way to be washed from our sins.

Did anyone deny that the term “manifestation” is biblical? It’s ironic that you ask me to check my facts. Did you actually read the source I quoted and its explicit denial of the Trinity?

14 justified7 March 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm

1x1x1=1

15 james kieferdorf July 12, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Christian music does have it’s unorthodox artists. One example is 8 time dove award winner, member of the Southern Gospel Music Hall Of Fame, Joel Hemphill of the Hemphill’s. Joel attacks the deity of our Lord Jesus, and the Holy Trinity in print and on tape. I have seen his materials attacking these cardinal teachings of the faith on 4 anti-deity of Christ sites. How one can attend conferences that attack our Lord’s deity, write a book using many of the same scriptures the JW’S use, make statements to Christian authors “We Are Going To Bring Down The Doctrine Of The Trinity”and perform concerts in Christian churches is a real shame. There are still some fine info on Joel Hemphill’s unorthodoxy on the web by evangelical ministries.

16 Eugene Daniels December 12, 2010 at 5:40 pm

This is an interesting topic. this prompted me to take a look at my church and see what they believe. Wow what a shock here is what it said;
ABOUT THE ONE TRUE GOD
God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He has eternally existed in three personalities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God.

Genesis 1:1,26,27, 3:22; Psalm 90:2; Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Corinthians 13:14

Three personalities? is this a reg flag? should I be asking questions?

17 Mark December 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Eugene,

By personalities they could just mean persons. It is probably nothing to worry about, but maybe a look at the entire statement of faith would help. Is you church part of a particular denomination?

18 Eugene Daniels December 12, 2010 at 10:59 pm

yeah the church is loosely connected with the assemblies of god I have a couple other issues that concern me on there statement of faith like;
About Salvation: salvation is defined as accepting Jesus as your lord and savior there is no mention of repentance for putting once trust faith in Jesus.
shouldn’t jesus be the 1 doing the accepting? no where in the bible does it instruct us to accept jesus
the gospel message should include, Gods characteristics and attributes righteous and holy.
mankind is wicked corrupt selfish wretched sinners.
God being righteous must punish sinners, yes we deserve hell
God demonstrating is love sent his son should be the perfect ransom for our sins.
accessing this grace is done when we repent of our sins and put our faith in jesus christ

19 Romayne January 7, 2012 at 10:04 am

I too loved the music of PC&D long before I ever came across this controversy over their views, BUT, having done so, I feel I cannot in all conscience continue to do so. My reasoning is that if I do believe that they are indeed modalistic in their theology, then I may as well listen to Mormon music or some other faith’s renderings to their Jesus, as if you’re not worshiping Jesus for Who he actually is, but rather a false “representation” of Him as the modalists believe in, then you’re not truly worshiping the One you believe in.

It reminds me of a similar argument surrounding yoga – again, I used to practice it in my youth, even as a Christian, before I learned more about its Hinduistic roots and I used to equally have the view that it was indeed only exercise, BUT again, the same holds- if the “author’s” intention is that the exercise is done in worship to their deities then for me to practice the exercise means I’m also worshiping the deity because the 2 are interconnected.

Ultimately it finally comes down to Paul’s admonitition in 1 Corinthians 8, that if you have a conscience about a practice, then for you it is sinful – end of!!

For me, I just keep praying they would accept the reality of the Trinity as taught in scripture & denounce any question of “manifestations” etc, as they truly do have a wonderful musical gift I’d truly love to be able to once again enjoy.

20 Josh January 25, 2012 at 9:40 pm

Eugene,

Please keep in mind that no where in the Bible does it say repent of your sins, as that would be works Eph 2:8-9. Repentance is biblical, however, many pervert the meaning. Regeneration comes before justification!

21 Romayne January 26, 2012 at 11:51 am

Josh

Think you need to perhaps clarify your statement, as you’re not exactly right to say “nowhere in the Bible does it say repent of your sins”.

Here’s the dictionary meaning:
verb (used with object e.g. sin)
1. to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to repent one’s injustice to another.
2. to feel sorry for; regret: to repent an imprudent act.

Repentance (and its a given that it’s from sin) is found in abundance throughout scripture from Genesis onwards. But primary texts would be Ezekiel 18:30, Luke 17:3-4, Acts 3:19, Acts 8:22, Rev 2:21-22. I found at least another couple of dozen mentions of repentance but just as a standalone term where these connect directly to sin.

Jesus exhorted people specifically to repent but certainly it’s God who draws the soul to desire & be willing to do so, as man never will seek to accept his sinfulness on his own.

I’m curious how you have come to consider repentance as a work? Did you not repent before accepting Jesus as your Saviour? If not, why did you feel you needed him to save you from anything, since normally repentance follows a deep knowledge of our sinful nature before God and our deep need for forgiveness – and that’s all repentance is – saying we know we’re sinners & need forgiveness with Jesus being the only means provided for us to be able to obtain it from God.

22 Eugene Daniels January 26, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Josh, what bible are you reading? I use the New American Standard and if you search the word Repentance or Repent it shows up 53 times in the New Testament. There are multiple examples of being instructed to repent.

We read; “From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”” Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15
This passage gives us a glimpse into how Jesus preached “from that time” meaning ‘from that time’ in His earthly ministry he proclaimed “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This is clearly his approach to proclaiming the message of salvation.

This is also how we see Peter and Paul preaching in the New Testament.
read the book of Acts look at Acts 3:19, Acts 5:31, Acts 8:22, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:24

Read to book of Romans and notice how Romans 2:4 fits into this picture. Read how Paul takes the Gospel message to the Greeks 2 Corinthians 7:9
I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us.
also see 2 Corinthians 7:10, 2 Corinthians 12:21 and Paul’s instructions to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:25)

Also The apostle John recorded in Revelation a unique message to the 7 churches with a strong rebuke and instructions from Jesus to the 7 churches in Revelation chapters 1-3.
Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent.Revelation 2:5

Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth. Revelation 2:16

I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Revelation 2:21

Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. Revelation 2:22

So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. Revelation 3:3

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
Revelation 3:19

here is another prospective to thinks about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ6dT0zryII

23 Josh January 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm

Romayne,

You are correct. I do need to clarify what I stated. Firstly, I agree that repentance is biblical, however, the meaning of repentance is where many go wrong.

How do I consider repentance from sin works? One verse that comes to mind is Jonah 3:10 “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” Turning from their evil ways was works. Another gem from that same verse says God repented. If that means repent from sin, is God a sinner? Nay, God forbid!

You said “since normally repentance follows a deep knowledge of our sinful nature before God and our deep need for forgiveness – and that’s all repentance is – saying we know we’re sinners & need forgiveness with Jesus being the only means provided for us to be able to obtain it from God.” To that I say AMEN! A lot of the time, that is true. God shows us what kind of sinners we are and guilt causes us to repent (turn from us to Him). However, keep in mind that repentance does not always include guilt. Sometimes fear causes repentance. Take Saul’s conversion, it was fear based. Take the Philippian jailer in Acts. Does it say he expressed remorse over his sin? No, it says he came to them trembling and asked what was required to be saved, to which they answered, believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. So yes, repentance is biblical and mentioned a plethora of times, however, the meaning is where most turn it from faith (belief) to works (turning from sin). If it means to turn from sin, which ones? The danger in this is that it leads down the road of can we lose salvation?

24 Eugene Daniels January 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Let me try this analogy
If you and I were both business partners and we were in New York and we had a very important meeting to attend in Atlanta Georgia. If I said to you Hey I know the way lets drive there and we can plan out our strategies and goals for this meeting you agreed to go along. however along the way you start geting concerned as the trees are getting thicker and weather is getting colder. then you see a sign that says Canada 35 miles. What would be your reaction? you would be mad that I have taken you the wrong way I have wasted your time. You would want me to
1. Agree with you that I am going the wrong way!
2. You would want me to apologize to you (repent)
3. stop going the wrong direction
4. turn the car around and
5. not stop until we get to Atlanta.
Repentance is agreeing with God that we have broken his commands It’s turning and turning from our sins and trusting in Jesus

its Not by works
Its recognizing that we are going the wrong direction and

25 Josh January 27, 2012 at 4:13 pm

Eugene,

I understand the concept, but thanks for your explanation anyhow. Repentance is indeed turning from us (who are sinners) to God, but it is not turning from sin itself. If so, which sins? All of them? Who can do such a thing? For all have sinned and come short. Good works are fruit that stems from salvation, not a prerequisite. If we have to turn from sin to be saved, if we sin again, do we need to be saved all over again? The statement I made above could be better clarified by stating that the phrase repent of your sins is never found in scripture. Do you disagree that there is clear evidence of men coming to Christ in the Bible without showing remorse? I gave two examples above.

26 David S. February 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm

If a man is dying of a heart attack and he picks up the phone to dial 911. An EMT shows up and saves the mans life. Who gets credit for saving the man. The phone call it’s self did not save the man. The EMT did. Repentance is no different. We are not saved by our act of Repentance. We are saved by a kind God. Repentance is just the right response to our dire situation.

27 Nate February 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm

The Greek word repentance literally means “to change your mind”, comprised of the Greek stems “meta” (change) + “nous” (mind). The pre-salvation repentance (that which occurs during the process of actually believing in Jesus, and which is mentioned throughout Scripture) is simply a mental/spiritual action, a sinner accepting the fact that they are currently guilty of their sins, and turning to Jesus’ finished work for forgiveness. This repentance takes only a moment (as with the criminal next to Jesus on the Cross), and is part of the salvation (belief) process, but not the sole agent of salvation itself. This repentance would obviously be followed by good works throughout the remainder of the life of said believer (along with ceasing of “dead works”, which Christians also regularly refer to as “repentance”, though I’m not exactly sure this is referred to in Scripture as such).

28 Even If April 16, 2012 at 4:26 pm

Sometimes, you see something and you just have to respond to it. You have to because you see that someone needs to be reminded of something or even introduced to something for the first time. So you try to do it simply for several reasons – toes can get stepped on – attitudes can flare up – anger can rare its ugly head. Lot’s of directions this can go, so you try and keep it simple. Maybe you ask questions instead of making dogmatic statements – questions that will cause people to examine or re-examine rather than get defensive and dogmatic.

1st Question: Was Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist) a Greek or a Jew.

2nd Question: Was the exegesis of Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist) Greek or Jewish?

3rd Question: Regarding Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist), did the Greek understandings of words inform the Hebrew or did the Hebrew understandings of words inform the Greek for him?

Matthew 3:2 (CJB)
2 “Turn from your sins to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near!”

4th Question: In the above verse, was Yochanan the Immerser’s (John the Baptist) understanding of repentance strictly the Greek understanding of metanoia or was it more likely the combination and understandings of the Hebrew words shûb and teshûbâ?

5th What was the biblical view of repentance: Was it a Greek view or a Hebrew view?

6th What was the Hebrew view and understanding of repentance when the text was written?

Matthew 4:17 (CJB)
17 From that time on, Yeshua (Jesus) began proclaiming,
“Turn from your sins to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near!”

Lest there be any doubt about the message and what it is intended to convey:

Luke 5:30-32 (CJB)
30 The P’rushim (Pharisees) and their Torah-teachers
protested indignantly against his talmidim (disciples) , saying,
“Why do you eat and drink with tax-collectors and sinners?”
31 It was Yeshua who answered them:
“The ones who need a doctor aren’t the healthy but the sick.
32 I have not come to call the ‘righteous,
’ but rather to call sinners to turn to God from their sins.”

Acts 2:38 (CJB)
38 Kefa (Peter) answered them,
“Turn from sin,
return to God,
and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins,
and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit)!
7th Was Yeshua (Jesus) a Greek or Jew? What about Kefa (Peter)?

8th Was there a Greek New Testament at the time that these accounts were written?

9th Does the mere presence of a Greek version of the Old Testament (septuagint), imply that it was the only version available and therefore used in the Temple and in their teachings?

10th Finally, can we hermeneutically justify a Greek understanding of the teachings of Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist), Yeshua (Jesus), and Kefa (Peter) or do we need to try an understand the Hebrew understandings so that the Greek used can be more easily understood in its original and probable context?

As for the Phillips, Craig and Dean issue – simple solution. They should be honest. If you are a Sabellianist, why not say you are? If you don’t believe in the Trinity – say you don’t. If the reason you are vague is because you think it will hurt record sales, you have a much bigger problem, because at the end of the day – it always comes down to a heart issue.

29 Janet Aldrich April 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm

Even If — I honor your learning, but I have to admit I don’t follow everything you said (from an intellectual standpoint). However, when it comes to PC&D, I agree. If the bottom line is money, then I can’t respect their music or their ministry. Continuing to pray for them.

30 Even If April 16, 2012 at 6:39 pm

That is very kind. I wrote you a facebook message Janet.
Blessings!

31 Phliip Pixler April 19, 2012 at 10:21 am

What amazes me the most about this whole thing, is that there is a feeling of superiority among Trinitarians concerning their adherence to this particular doctrine. And yet the Jews understood most excellently the fact that there was one God and one God alone. Never was he plural in their understandings and never was he revealed as more than one at any time. Deuteronomy 6:4 says “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD!” It was so important that it was commanded that they teach it to their children diligently. It was so important that they wore it on their heads in a literal manner and bound it on their posts and gates. God wanted the Jews to know that there are NO God’s beside him. And yet, 180 years AFTER Christ’s birth we find a doctrine being circulated that there is not ONE God revealing himself in 3 separate ways (Which is in itself a misnomer. Christ said he would send another comforter and yet is revealed in other scripture to himself be our comforter. The Spirit of Christ is the same thing as the Holy Spirit in scripture. And the Holy Spirit is the same thing as the Father for it was not the Father who overshadowed Mary to give birth to Jesus, but the Holy Ghost.) but instead three distinct persons who makeup a hive-mind God. Can anyone explain WHY God needs three people to do what he does? Finally, the Catholic church admits that before they changed it to “in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost” as the formula for baptism, it was performed “in the name of Jesus” for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we MUST be saved. Not in the titles of the supposedly triune Godhead are we saved (which was completely in Christ bodily by the way) but in the name of Jesus our savior. It was HIS blood that was shed and by His blood are we saved and by HIS stripes are we healed. Yet, because of the pagan ideas of the Trinity (Trinitarianism has its root in paganism, look it up, I promise you that you will find evidence to this Fact) the church no longer baptizes people according to scriptural formula (nowhere in the Bible was any person EVER baptized in the “name of the father, son, and holy ghost”) but under a false baptism. If we are not buried in the likeness of Christ and calling out the name of the Lord we are NOT saved and that is the biggest heresy of all. Please do not stand haughtily up on your righteous high horse and look down upon “sebellian heretics” and laugh as we wallow in our “un-saved” filth. Look at your own situation and read your own scripture. Read the Bible for what it says and don’t interpret it according to your own doctrines! Heresy begins when you deny explicitly what scripture says. And you cannot deny that scripture says there is one God and one God alone. You can also not deny that it NEVER states that there are separate persons. You can only interpret scripture in a way as to allow three persons to exist in the Godhead. Never is it stated in scripture, only extrapolated when filtered through Trinitarian ideology. But if you read it fresh as a virgin you would not come out with three God’s. But one!

32 Even If April 19, 2012 at 3:07 pm

I can see your upset Phil. I would also pray that no one on here that is laughing at you or that considered you filth. If they did, then nothing they would say would be of any importance to me anyways regarding my opinion towards you. That being said, I would like to address you response in love.

When you study the bible – it always comes back to one thing – always . . . your heart.

If you give with the wrong heart, even if you give all you have – it means nothing
If you obey God’s commands with the wrong heart – your obedience means nothing.
If you bring your gift to the alter with a wrong heart – that gift means nothing

The heart is always the barometer for God – He alone knows it and He alone with judge it.

First question, and it is a simple one:

If these 3 artists believe that Sabellius was right regarding a oneness doctrine or dispensational Modalism in the 3rd century, and yet they conceal that fact, where is their heart in the matter? If they conceal that fact so that record sales are not hurt, where is their heart in the matter?

This argument NEVER comes down to which side believes God is one – I think we all do, right?

“Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad.

This argument always comes down to what “God is one” means. For example:

In the famous Shema of Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel . . . the Lord is one,” the question of diversity within unity has theological implications. Some scholars have felt that, though “one” is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity. While it is true that this doctrine is foreshadowed in the OT, the verse concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel owes its exclusive loyalty to him (Deut. 5:9; Deut. 6:5). The NT also is strictly monotheistic while at the same time teaching diversity within the unity (James 2:19; 1 Cor. 8:5-6).
[The lexical and syntactical difficulties of Deut. 6:4 can be seen in the many translations offered for it in the NIV. The option “the Lord is our God, the Lord alone” has in its favor both the broad context of the book and the immediate context. Deut. 6:4 serves as an introduction to motivate Israel to keep the command “to love (the Lord)” (Deut. 6:5). The notion that the Lord is Israel’s only God suits this command admirably (cf. Song 6:8f). Moreover, these two notions, the Lord’s unique relation to Israel and Israel’s obligation to love him, are central to the concern of Moses’ addresses in the book

R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Bruce K. Waltke, ed., “61: ‏אֶחַד‎,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: “61: ‏אֶחַד‎”.

Yeshua said this was the most important command of all. It would be good to understand then right?

The context in both places Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29 regards God’s covenant people. Yeshua says tells us what His mission is and I encourage you to read it in context:

Matthew 15:24 (CJB)
24 He said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Isra’el.”

We DO have to be careful that we don’t make doctrinal statements that aren’t in the text. Sha’ul was teaching this point to the Corinthians when he explained the following:

1 Corinthians 3:3-8 (CJB)
3 For you are still worldly! Isn’t it obvious from all the jealousy and quarreling among you that you are worldly and living by merely human standards?
4 For when one says, “I follow Sha’ul” and another, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you being merely human?
5 After all, what is Apollos? What is Sha’ul? Only servants through whom you came to trust. Indeed, it was the Lord who brought you to trust through one of us or through another.
6 I planted the seed, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow.
7 So neither the planter nor the waterer is anything, only God who makes things grow —
8 planter and waterer are the same. However, each will be rewarded according to his work.

Again, a heart issue.

This may be one of the reasons why we have word for word translations of the bible and thought for though translations of the bible. It may also why we have combination word for word/thought for thought translations of the bible as well.

So, back to the Adonai is one:

Shʾma Israel, Adonai Eloheynu, Adonai echad. How can God be one and yet be Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Doesn’t that make God three? Nowhere does the New Testament say that God is three, but here it does say that God is one, unique, the only God there is—so that his Word is the only authoritative word about God, man and the relationship between them.
Also the Tanakh in several places gives a remez (“hint”; see Mt 2:15N) that the “inner structure” of the one true God involves Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Isaiah 48:16 uses three different terms to speak of the divine: “… from the time that it was, there am I; and now Adonai God and his Spirit has sent me.” At Genesis 1:26 God uses the plural to speak of himself: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”; the rabbinic explanation that this means God and the angels has no contextual support, and there is no reason for a “plural of majesty” at this point. Likewise, here in the Shʾma (Deuteronomy 6:4) there are two such rʾmazim: (1) the triple reference to God, and (2) the use of the word “echad” which often means a multiple unity (such as “one” cluster of grapes or “one” bundle of sticks) instead of “yachid,” which nearly always excludes multiple oneness.

David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, (Clarksville, Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 96-97.

You state that:

never was he revealed as more than one at any time.

This is kind of misleading. It is true “Sh’ma, Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad. He is one. We also know that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. But you are implying he has never revealed himself as more than one dispensation at a time, even if you don’t realize that you are. If you are not implying this, then your statement makes no sense. The only other stance you could take is that you are saying that Trinitarians believe in 3 Gods. These are the only feasible explanations.

I have heard it quoted more than once that the biggest problem that Jews have is that Yeshua said He was God. They believe this makes God 2 and not 1 and therefore is contradicting God’s word.

Let’s continue:

Matthew 3:13-17 (CJB)
13 Then Yeshua came from the Galil to the Yarden to be immersed by Yochanan.
14 But Yochanan tried to stop him. “You are coming to me? I ought to be immersed by you!”
15 However,Yeshua answered him, “Let it be this way now, because we should do everything righteousness requires.” Then Yochanan let him.
16 As soon as Yeshua had been immersed, he came up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, he saw the Spirit of God coming down upon him like a dove,
17 and a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with him.”

I am not sure how you rectify this with your statement above? While we are at it, let me ask you a tougher one . . .

Matthew 27:46 (CJB)
46 At about three, Yeshua uttered a loud cry, “Eli! Eli! L’mah sh’vaktani? (My God! My God! Why have you deserted me?)”

If your statement is true and he was never revealed as more than one (dispensation) at anytime, wouldn’t this have to read: (My God! My God! Why have “I” deserted me?)

Perhaps the toughest of all to rectify would be the following:

Who was Yeshua praying to when he prayed?

Was he praying to himself since he can only be one manifistation or dispensation at a time? OK, Maybe you are saying, “Wait, I’m not a sequentialist!” OK. It doesn’t change the facts. It even gives me pause.

If you are familiar with Zeno’s Paradox, you will understand this line of questioning. At which point Did God stop being God and start being God as man? Was that at conception. And since it was the Spirit of God that came upon Miryam, at which point did God stop being God and start becoming God as Spirit?

Matthew 1:20 (CJB)
20 But while he was thinking about this, an angel of Adonai appeared to him in a dream and said, “Yosef, son of David, do not be afraid to take Miryam home with you as your wife; for what has been conceived in her is from the Ruach HaKodesh(Holy Spirit).

And at what point did He go back to being God in the first manifestation? – He HAD to at some time because He said “This is my son with whom I am well pleased.”

Phil, I felt your pain and anger. That is why I responded. He is not 3 Gods. He is one God. And His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. When we try to make his ways our ways and/or His thoughts our thoughts, we diminish him by bringing him down to our level. We are 3 dimensional creatures worshiping a 70X7 dimensional God. God’s Shalom and love to you!

33 Scott F. Guinn May 3, 2012 at 7:34 am

Well said, “Even If”! I would just like to add a couple of other things regarding the Trinity . . .

Orthodox Christian doctrine (as does, I believe, the Bible) teaches that God is both a Unity and a Trinity. I have heard people use analogies like an egg, or a cherry pie with a top and bottom crust (three different sections, but one pie). I think these are overly simplistic and not at all helpful. God is also transcendent, and as a sinful, finite, imperfect man I will never be able to comprehend a sinless, infinite, perfect God. However, I can still have some measure of understanding and believe it.

In Genesis 1:1, the very first verse of the Bible, the name translated as “God” is “Elohim.” This name is a compound unity; that is to say that it is a singular noun with a plural ending. Thus, one God in more than one person is at least hinted at from the very first verse of Scripture. There are other implicit references to the Triune God in the OT, some of which Even If has addressed.

In the NT, the passage that most convinces me that the Trinity is an accurate doctrine is John 14:16-17, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. He is the Spirit of truth. The world is unable to receive Him because it doesn’t see Him or know Him. But you do know Him, because He remains with you and will be in you.” Is Jesus praying to Himself, asking Himself to send another “mode” of Himself? Jesus refers to the father as “He,” not as “I.” Likewise, Jesus refers to the Spirit as “He,” not as “I,” and (this is important) as “ANOTHER Counselor.” Note that Jesus does not say, “I have decided to come back to You as a Counselor to be with you forever. I remain with you and will be in you.” No, he says, “I will ask the Father, and HE will send you ANOTHER Counselor, who will be in you.”

At any rate, I have examined the doctrinal statements on the websites for PCD’s churches. One of them simply has the Apostles’ Creed. I am not fully convinced that any or all of these men are, in fact, modalists. I suspect that at least one of them may well be, but I do not have enough information to make that determination to my own satisfaction. It does disturb me more than a little that none of them will simply come out and declare whether they are “Oneness Pentecostals” (modalists) or not.

I think Augustine had it right when he said, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” I consider the doctrine of the Trinity as an essential issue–a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. If PCD do, in fact, deny this doctrine, I cannot have unity with them, and I will not purchase or listen to their music anymore.

34 Philip Pixler May 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm

I appreciate your sympathetic response and the tone you took in both of your replies. I am still Oneness (obviously :P) but I appreciate that the floor is no longer a hostile one. You have to understand that believing in the Oneness doctine (with knowledge and not in ignorance) can be one of the more austere positions in Christianity. Especially in a world where everyone believes in the Trinity. I’m going to address the things you presented to me in order. I’m not a scholar by any means, as you seem to be, but I can still think :P.

Concerning Isaiah 48:16, that scripture appears to refer to the author as opposed to Christ. I’m not the only one who seems to think so. What are your thoughts? In other words, It is Isaiah saying Adonai God and his Spirit (God is himself THE Spirit so I don’t see how this would refer to 2 non-the-less 3 different types).

I guess my statement was misleading in a way. I simply mean that he never stated that there were three separate persons in the Godhead. Now, The Baptism of Jesus does show three different manifestations of God at once. Jesus in the water, the Father in the voice, and the Holy Spirit as a dove. Here’s my question to you: If these are three different persons, and each one is God in full, then why did Jesus need to have the Holy Spirit descend upon him? Also, does this imply that God can be divided into three separate entities acting individually? I find it much more simple, and logical, to believe that each manifestation was given for a sign to the people present as well as other reasons. But not to indicate to the people of Israel just how many persons there were when dealing with God. (Interesting read here:http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/voicedove.htm)

Concerning Christ crying out “My God, My God, What hast thou forsaken me?” and also praying in the garden. Firstly, you must admit that Trinitarian and Oneness believers agree that Christ was all man and all God. This implies a dual nature; a flesh which could be tempted to do evil but was not corrupted by sin, and the divine Spirit of God. When Christ cries out on the cross it was not the divine person of Jesus (as relates to the Trinity) crying out to the divine person of the Father. It was the flesh of Christ crying out to the Spirit that had been with him since he was born. Which makes sense considering the fact that God couldn’t have literally left Jesus on the Cross. It had to be God in Christ redeeming us back to himself in order for it to be eficacious, not the man Christ Jesus separate from the Spirit of God.

Lastly, I get where you’re coming from with the sequentialist line of thought. However, you seem, in my opinion, to be limiting God quite a bit here. You seem to think that if Christ was the fullness of the Godhead bodily (oneness understanding) that you must temporarily retire the role of the Father. And that when God takes up any role at any point he must stop being his other roles temporarily. To say this is to say that there must be 3 persons in order for their to be 3 manifestations. I don’t see how this is even remotely Biblical and as an argument is rather limiting of God’s ability to be Omnipresent. He most definitely operates outside of our realm and as such is not limited by restrictions such as donning different hats for different situations. He’s God after all! 😛

Lastly, to Scott, On the Elohim statement: Yes, Elohim is the plural of El. And that is one of the favorites that I was presented with growing up going to a Baptist school. But why then did the Israelites not come under some reason to think that God had multiple personalities. I mean, Christianity didn’t come about until after Israel had been around for a long time, and during that whole time there was absolutely no allusion to a plurality of persons. It just seems convenient that it wasn’t until 200 years after Christ’s death that the Trinity was introduced.

And on your sending another comforter statement: Christ said he would send another comforter, correct. However, why then is it said throughout scripture that Christ is the one who dwells within us.

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
Romans 8:9

“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,”
Ephesians 3:17, KJV

“Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.”
1 John 4:13, KJV

Finally, I have to point out this Scripture, because to me it’s kinda important to this discussion.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

He’s the everlasting Father, He’s a son, and he’s also a Counsellor (may also be translated as Comforter).

Thank you again for being kind to me. I know I bared my heart there a little bit, but I know that if I don’t stand up for what I believe in then someone else will think it’s ok to simply call someone a heretic because it’s popular. And frankly, I’m not cool with that. I don’t call Trinitarians heretics even though we disagree on the rather key issue. And if I were to take up the same line of thought concerning not purchasing someones music due to our disagreement on doctrine, then I wouldn’t listen to very much Christian music lol. Thankfully, there are plenty of Oneness albums out so I COULD theoretically stop listening to Trinitarian music, but I don’t find it to be taht important. If the songs glorifies God and takes peoples attentions off of themselves, then the song is worthy of use in worship.

35 Even If May 4, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Phil,

I DO care about you! It is not an act. It is obvious to me that you study. It is also obvious to me that you are intelligent. It is in acknowledgment of these things that I would like to frame my response:

In Mishnah Pirkei Avot, which is also known as Ethics Of The Fathers, Rabbi Judah used to say:

Be careful in teaching, for error in teaching amounts to deliberate sin.

With this and the above in mind, I am not going to try to convince you. I am simply going to point out some things for you to consider because I can see that you will consider them. In other words, I am going to put a pebble in your shoe. How you deal with that pebble is between you and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit).

Historically, there have been people that disagreed within the body of believers.

In Judaism, there were those that believed in the Resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) and those that didn’t (Sadducees).

In Christianity, the church was not too fond of Copernicus and his view that the earth revolved around the sun (The church at the time believed that the sun, and everything else for that matter, revolved around the earth).

I point these things out so that you will realize, that I also realize, that there have been disagreements between believers throughout history over doctrine.

Be that as it may, and without going into the history behind Sabellianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Montanism, I can see we have to cut to the chase and discuss the hard issue here:

The pre-existence of the Son . . .

I won’t go into the John 1:1 debate because I know there are arguments, right or wrong, that prevent many people in this debate from acknowledging that this is talking about Yeshua.

However, there is one that has to be addressed:

John 17:1-8 (CJB)
1 After Yeshua had said these things, he looked up toward heaven and said,

“Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you —

2 just as you gave him authority over all mankind,

so that he might give eternal life to all those whom you have given him.

3 And eternal life is this:

to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.

4 “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

5 Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself.

Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed.

6 “I made your name known to the people you gave me out of the world.

They were yours, you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.

7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you,

8 because the words you gave me I have given to them, and they have received them.

They have really come to know that I came from you, and they have come to trust that you sent me.

This is a BIG pebble Phil. Let’s examine another one:

Philippians 2:5-11 (CJB)
5 Let your attitude toward one another be governed by
your being in union with the Messiah Yeshua:

6 Though he was in the form of God,
he did not regard equality with God
something to be possessed by force.
7 On the contrary, he emptied himself,
in that he took the form of a slave
by becoming like human beings are.
And when he appeared as a human being,
8 he humbled himself still more
by becoming obedient even to death —
death on a stake as a criminal!
9 Therefore God raised him to the highest place
and gave him the name above every name;
10 that in honor of the name given Yeshua,
every knee will bow —
in heaven, on earth and under the earth —
11 and every tongue will acknowledge
that Yeshua the Messiah is Adonai —
to the glory of God the Father.

And yet another pebble:

Colossians 1:14-17 (CJB)
14 It is through his Son that we have redemption —
that is, our sins have been forgiven.

15 He is the visible image of the invisible God.

He is supreme over all creation,
16 because in connection with him were created all things —
in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones,
lordships,
rulers or authorities —
they have all been created through him and for him.

17 He existed before all things, and he holds everything together.

It is quite clear that from the text He existed at the beginning, John 1 notwithstanding.

Before we read something into the text here, I am going to share some of my as of yet unpublished book Even If . . .

There is a discipline known to those that study the bible as hermeneutics. In its most basic sense, biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methodology concerning correct interpretation of the biblical text. It is a huge topic in and of itself. Our goal however, is a more narrow focus revolving around our previously mentioned litmus test analogy: application. The application of interpretation of the biblical text can be found in 2 very similar but very different words: exegesis (x-a-gee-sus) and eisegesis (ice-a-gee-sus).
Exegesis is from the Greek and means “to lead out.” A person using exegesis when studying the text is trying to get God’s original and intended meaning for the text. To do that, that person would want to consider context, culture, history, author, translation and how it relates to the entire Biblical text as a whole.
Eisegesis on the other hand, is from the Greek as well and means “to lead into.” A person using eisegesis when studying the text is trying to make the text fit their own understanding. To do that, that person only needs to consider how he feels about what the text says and then say that it means exactly what he wants or feels it says to him or her.

I share this with you so that you will know what eisegesis is and why it is to be avoided. I want you to read these scriptures for you. Not for the doctrine you subscribe to, not for me, but for you – you don’t have to respond to them. I would also highly recommend reading the entire 1st chapter of Hebrews – another pebble. I offer it here. The bold references are to the earlier covenants (Old Testament):

Hebrews 1:1-14 (CJB)
1 In days gone by, God spoke in many and varied ways to the Fathers through the prophets.
2 But now, in the acharit-hayamim (last days), he has spoken to us through his Son, to whom he has given ownership of everything and through whom he created the universe.
3 This Son is the radiance of the Sh’khinah (glory), the very expression of God’s essence, upholding all that exists by his powerful word; and after he had, through himself, made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of HaG’dulah BaM’romim (Majesty on high).
4 So he has become much better than angels, and the name God has given him is superior to theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

Also, God never said of any angel,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son.”

6 And again, when God brings his Firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 Indeed, when speaking of angels, he says,

“… who makes his angels winds and his servants fiery flames”;

8 but to the Son, he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever;
you rule your Kingdom with a scepter of equity;
9 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
Therefore, O God, your God has anointed you
with the oil of joy in preference to your companions”;

10 and,

“In the beginning, Adonai, you laid the foundations of the earth;
heaven is the work of your hands.
11 They will vanish, but you will remain;
like clothing, they will all grow old;
12 and you will fold them up like a coat.
Yes, they will be changed like clothing,
but you remain the same,
your years will never end.”

13 Moreover, to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Aren’t they all merely spirits who serve, sent out to help those whom God will deliver?

So Phil, with humor and humility, I might remind you that walking with pebbles in our shoes can be painful. You can ignore the pebbles or take your shoe off and empty the pebbles, but know this regardless – Yeshua existed prior to Miryam (Mary). There is not a convincing eisegetical argument that He didn’t in light of the text. It will be my prayer that you can drop your ideology long enough to consider these parts of the text before you dismiss them. May the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) guide you!

Blessings to you!

36 Janet Aldrich May 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm

I have always believed that the three who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 were a manifestation of the Godhead. I have read that Augustine expressed the popular belief that the three men were the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

“But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, “The Lord appeared to him.” And then, setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, “The Lord,” it says, “appeared to Abraham.” He invites them then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom.”

37 Gabrielle May 9, 2012 at 9:51 am

Hi there, it is so sad how people cannot see clearly that the Bible, Gods word teaches about the Trinity. A fantastic verse I like to use a lot is 1 John 5:6-8 “This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” To me this is one of the most clearest verses in the Bible that gives proof to the Trinity 🙂 Thank you very much for writing this blog. I use to like this group and once I found out that they are modalists I stopped listening to their music. Continue on in the faith, press on and endure to the end! God bless!

38 Philip Pixler May 21, 2012 at 8:52 am

I’ve been rather busy lately and haven’t been able to reply, but I promise one will come in the near future. Concerning Gabrielle, You may want to stop using 1 John 5:7 as a Biblical reason for believing the trinity. It’s historically faulty and was a controversial addition into the Bible even when it was added in the 1500’s. It’s out of context with the scripture and it’s also not in all of the early manuscripts. Read this article for more: http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

If you read that scripture without 1 John 5:7 you come up with a pretty simple explanation for the Oneness doctrine.

He came by water and Blood, Jesus Christ came not just by water but also by blood. It is the Spirit who bears witness. There are three that bear witness on the earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.”

39 Mel July 16, 2012 at 4:43 pm

What if PCD were to repent today and hold true the doctrine of the Trinity as you understand it…would your singing of such wonderful songs like “Come Now Is The Time To Worship” or “Here I Am To Worship” have any more acceptance to the One (Christ) you sing them to? Isn’t it your heart such worship exudes from, not PCDs? I for one can sing those songs in pure worship to Jesus for saving my soul, I can weep as each word reminds me of His love and tells Him of mine. I do think it sad that PCD appears to be hiding their true belief, if that is what’s happening; but we are all sinners saved by grace. Are we to judge, I think not. For those of you who have PCD in your prayers, you are doing the right thing and obeying His word. The Trinity is indeed a mystery and I’d be lying if I said I fully understood the concept…

40 beth August 8, 2012 at 5:52 pm

I see nothing wrong with listening to their music. It’s not like what I believe will be changed because I listened to “Revelation Song” (which comes pretty much word for word from the book of Revelation)! I listen to other Christian music that is written/performed by people who believe differently than I do on other doctrines. I go to church on Saturday, not Sunday, but I have no problem with music that mentions going to church on Sunday. I listen to songs that talk about going to heaven when you die when I do not believe that. It’s not like their music even mentions anything about the Trinity! Yes, I believe that God is 3-in-1. I just don’t think it’s right to condemn or judge anyone else for what they believe – or don’t believe. Besides, none of our human minds can fully understand this concept.

I do not mean to offend anyone. I am just stating where I stand. PC&D has great music that uplifts me and draws me closer to God. Why should I boycott them because we disagree on something? If we all did that, there wouldn’t be very much music to listen to, would there?
If you feel conviction not to listen to them, then stop. I don’t feel that conviction, so unless I do, I won’t change my choice in music. If it’s wrong for you, don’t do it. It’s one of those “gray areas,” in my opinion.
James 4:17 (NKJV) “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”

41 Steve August 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm

If I can clarify just a bit here…
You state:
“Repentance is indeed turning from us (who are sinners) to God, but it is not turning from sin itself. If so, which sins? All of them? Who can do such a thing? For all have sinned and come short. Good works are fruit that stems from salvation, not a prerequisite. If we have to turn from sin to be saved, if we sin again, do we need to be saved all over again?”
No – your initial definition of Repentance is incorrect.
Repentance is simply a turning away from. God turned away from his wrath. We turn away from sin.
When you repent and believe and are given the gift of Salvation, you are no longer the ‘old man’ shackled to your sin. You are now a New Creation no longer in bondage to sin, but to Christ. Will we yet sin? Of course! We are not Jesus – we will fail. However, we are not in bondage to that sin and that sin act will not be the norm in our lives any longer. Thus repeated Salvation is not necessary, however repeated requests for forgiveness are necessary when we fail and sin.
Steve

42 Luis J. Diaz September 27, 2012 at 11:27 am

Grace & Peace! @ Janet Aldrich I find that insight interesting and worth studying further. Nevertheless, one of my difficulties with modalism is the resurrection. Jesus resurrects in bodily form and many questions arise that challenges modalist theology. These question they may have answers to, nevertheless, here it goes: 1) Who resurrects Jesus? (Which manifestation Father or Spirit) 2) As Jesus ascends (Acts 1) the angels present state Jesus would return in the same manner, though referencing His return with the clouds, I believe he will return in bodily form, so, is Jesus currently in bodily form in Heaven? To further the question, how do modalist explain Jesus going to prepare a place in heaven for those who believe if he is not in bodily form? Just my mind working overtime according to Jude 1:3.

43 Becky February 5, 2013 at 9:26 pm

I had a face to face conversation w Pastor Randy Phillips and he does not believe in or teach modalism. Have you ever gone to the source?

44 Mark February 5, 2013 at 11:30 pm

Becky, did you even read my article?

First, Randy Phillips ministry background from the Life Austin site.

Randy began full-time ministry in 1985 as Business Administrator of his father’s church PromiseLand Central. After becoming an ordained minister in 1989, he served their as Associate Pastor for the next 16 years.

Now, the position of his father’s church PromiseLand Central on the Trinity from their site.

In the year A.D. 180, Tertullian began using the term “trinity” from which was born the Catholic doctrine of three Gods, co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal. The Roman Emperor Constantine in the year A.D. 325 incorporated the “doctrine of the trinity” into the Catholic Church where it has remained ever since, and most Protestant churches have accepted this doctrine without thorough examination. The “trinity”, however, generates confusion and is not in total harmony with the Scriptures. To say that there are three separate persons who somehow comprise “one God” is like trying to connect opposing sides of two magnets. When you add 1+1+1, it must equal three; and there cannot, under any circumstances, be more than one God.

One of the primary sources of confusion in this matter is related to the word “persons.” The doctrine of the trinity states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three “persons” who make up one God. In actuality, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three manifestations of one God. This word manifestation means “to appear”, and it is quite scriptural. The Bible tells us that, “God was manifest in the flesh . . .” (I Timothy 3:16). In other words, God appeared in the flesh (as a son).

Then, if you read Randy Phillip’s church’s belief statement from April 6, 2010 it matches the above paragraph.

While it’s possible that Randy has moved away from the doctrine his father’s church holds to where he served as a pastor for 16 years. Then, Randy started PromiseLand West in 2005 whose website displayed Modalistic beliefs until 2010. It’s possible, but not probable.

Maybe I’ll send him and email and ask and see what answer I get.

Modalism aside, did you also ask Randy if he holds to the doctrine of the Trinity?

45 Angel43 September 7, 2013 at 1:57 am

I belive a person can not understand or believe in trinity but support that Father, Son & Holy Spirit are divine & of the 1 true God…and if so and belief Jesus is God, the Word, and place faith in Him…they are saved.  Is this the trinity?  Do they believe this?  Sometimes I suspect I dont fully grasp the arguments involved in this…but what I stated is what I believe for sure regarding the Deity of Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

46 Dr Moffett November 27, 2013 at 7:09 pm

@ Mark, you are too busy regurgitating what they rammed down your throat in the Baptist Seminary to have your own mind about anything that has to do with the gospel.  Your God is Trinity, oneness peoples God is Jesus.  Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit you can not understand that because you are busy condescending to your denomination. Isaiah 9:66 For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor , The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.     Baptism without Jesus’ Name is a Bloodless Baptism!
Rev. Dr. Steve Joel Moffett, Sr. (look me up on Amazon.com)

47 Dr Moffett November 27, 2013 at 7:11 pm

@ Mark, you are too busy regurgitating what they rammed down your throat in the Baptist Seminary to have your own mind about anything that has to do with the gospel.  Your God is Trinity, Oneness believers God is Jesus.  Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit you can not understand that because you are busy condescending to your denomination.
 Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,Counsellor , The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.   
  Baptism without Jesus’ Name is a Bloodless Baptism!
Rev. Dr. Steve Joel Moffett, Sr. (look me up on Amazon.com)

48 Mark Lamprecht November 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm

@Dr Moffett Thanks for stopping by and sharing and noting the important differences in our beliefs. Hope you have a great Thanksgiving!

49 Greg Fischer April 18, 2016 at 12:40 pm

I once attended an Apostolic church, and after the service on the way out I asked the pastor a few questions about speaking in tongues and “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, as many Pentecostals believe as a demonstration of salvation. The arrogance displayed in his response belies much of the false teachings in the Charismatic Movement and Pentecostalism. So much of their beliefs focus on edifying the self, instead of the body of Christ, and not offering true worship to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their belief is modalism is false worship, as the Bible clearly teaches in Luke 3:21 and 3:22 that all 3 persons of the Trinity are distinguishable, operating together, and at the same time in these verses – strong proof against modalism. Find yourself a good Bible-teaching church and avoid these kind of emotion-filled and experience-based heresies.

God bless,
greg

50 Greg C. July 13, 2018 at 9:57 pm

1st Corinthians 15: 24- 28 v 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. v25 For he must reign, till he hath put all things under his feet. v 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. v 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. v 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. I hope this sheds some light here for us all !

.

Previous post:

Next post: