Steven Avery
Administrator
When I first repented and came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in the 1970s those who shared with me, and prayed with me, and showed the love of the Lord Jesus, had a doctrine that would be considered "oneness Pentecostal". Although they were rather radical, with a community perspective, and by 1978 had departed from their organization.
(Today they are called Homestead Heritage, and there is a section here dedicated to the group. Sadly, today they often use corruption versions and try to choose words from various versions to match their eldership declaration beliefs, version smorgasbording, and their doctrines have become rather confused. Including fundamental Sacred Name errors that lead to prayer to the dark-side entity "yahweh" and utilize the mangle-hybrid non-name "yahshua" as a competitor to Jesus. And a blasphemous statement that water baptism is a pledge of the old nature.)
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was attending both "Oneness" and "Messianic" fellowships, which are generally Trinitarian, or perhaps Trinity Lite. I still kept contact with my friends from Homestead, now based in Texas (I had been with them mostly in NJ and then Colorado.) with their buffeting on fundamental Christian issues not becoming fully clear until about five years ago. To be fair, it is my daily hope and prayer that they will regain balance, so that their center can hold -- in Jesus -- and with scriptures pure.
(And I also spent time learning from Fundamental Baptists and Reformation-based studies, and with people from diverse groups, including Sabbatarian, health-conscious Adventists who take people in to their off-the radar sanitariums, Anabaptists, and I also over time studied more the Futurist-Historicist-Preterist perspectives. The biggest caution .. for some years I was fascinated with the "Sacred Name" perspectives, although I never turned against the name of Jesus .. thank you Lord Jesus!)
Over the years I came to realize that:
Christology doctrinal discussions, as well as much Apologetics, were always sidetracked by the modern version corruptions.
And I studied this phenomenon deeply, and realized that sound Christian doctrine, which is supposed to be built upon the Scriptures, the plumb line of faith, fails totally with the Critical Text and the corruption versions. (This phenomenon is discussed in many ways on this forum.)
If Scripture is to inform our doctrine, we needed the pure Bible. This means the Reformation Bible editions from the Received Text, and the apex of purity and perfection edition, the Authorized Version.
These studies, precept upon precept, line upon line, brought me to the preservational imperative of holding God's pure word in my hands!
As an example:
Those who did not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is "God manifest in the flesh" were often very strange fire Unitarians and Ebionites and Adoptionists. So they embraced the corruption in the verse that is in the modern versions that eviscerates the beautiful doctrinal declaration of "God was manifest in the flesh" (in addition to making a horrid grammatical solecism.)
And I learned that most American evangelical "Trinitarians" really do not accept the supposed orthodoxy of Creedalism. And those with a Oneness perspective were often one-dimensional, and could have their own wide swatch of doctrine. Over the years I have attended various Pentecostal, Messianic and Evangelical churches and fellowships.
One of the wonderful revelations over the years was that most of these
debates were themselves outside of scripture, which kept declarations beautifully simple, declaring Jesus as the Son of God, born of the virgin, the Word made flesh and dwelt among us, God manifest in the flesh
Most all full Christology simply needs these declarations, and related ones in Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms, Philippians, Colossians and other sections. We do not require complex formulations, from Trinitarians, Oneness or others. (for the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth, see sections here looking at the teaching of men like Arthur C. Custance, consistent with the archaeology discoveries of Ron Wyatt.)
As an example, and without controversy!
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
Can we improve beautiful declarations of this nature by making them into complex mind-bending creeds? I trow not!
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
We do know that modern version Vaticanus corruptions can destroy these declarations, and make Jesus into a begotten god, or take away the declaration that Jesus is "God manifest in the flesh".
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.
In this context, I learned that identifying the pure and perfect word of God comes first, and scriptural doctrines should then flow, like a river of life, out of the word of Scripture.
(Today they are called Homestead Heritage, and there is a section here dedicated to the group. Sadly, today they often use corruption versions and try to choose words from various versions to match their eldership declaration beliefs, version smorgasbording, and their doctrines have become rather confused. Including fundamental Sacred Name errors that lead to prayer to the dark-side entity "yahweh" and utilize the mangle-hybrid non-name "yahshua" as a competitor to Jesus. And a blasphemous statement that water baptism is a pledge of the old nature.)
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was attending both "Oneness" and "Messianic" fellowships, which are generally Trinitarian, or perhaps Trinity Lite. I still kept contact with my friends from Homestead, now based in Texas (I had been with them mostly in NJ and then Colorado.) with their buffeting on fundamental Christian issues not becoming fully clear until about five years ago. To be fair, it is my daily hope and prayer that they will regain balance, so that their center can hold -- in Jesus -- and with scriptures pure.
(And I also spent time learning from Fundamental Baptists and Reformation-based studies, and with people from diverse groups, including Sabbatarian, health-conscious Adventists who take people in to their off-the radar sanitariums, Anabaptists, and I also over time studied more the Futurist-Historicist-Preterist perspectives. The biggest caution .. for some years I was fascinated with the "Sacred Name" perspectives, although I never turned against the name of Jesus .. thank you Lord Jesus!)
Over the years I came to realize that:
Christology doctrinal discussions, as well as much Apologetics, were always sidetracked by the modern version corruptions.
And I studied this phenomenon deeply, and realized that sound Christian doctrine, which is supposed to be built upon the Scriptures, the plumb line of faith, fails totally with the Critical Text and the corruption versions. (This phenomenon is discussed in many ways on this forum.)
If Scripture is to inform our doctrine, we needed the pure Bible. This means the Reformation Bible editions from the Received Text, and the apex of purity and perfection edition, the Authorized Version.
These studies, precept upon precept, line upon line, brought me to the preservational imperative of holding God's pure word in my hands!
As an example:
Those who did not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is "God manifest in the flesh" were often very strange fire Unitarians and Ebionites and Adoptionists. So they embraced the corruption in the verse that is in the modern versions that eviscerates the beautiful doctrinal declaration of "God was manifest in the flesh" (in addition to making a horrid grammatical solecism.)
And I learned that most American evangelical "Trinitarians" really do not accept the supposed orthodoxy of Creedalism. And those with a Oneness perspective were often one-dimensional, and could have their own wide swatch of doctrine. Over the years I have attended various Pentecostal, Messianic and Evangelical churches and fellowships.
One of the wonderful revelations over the years was that most of these
debates were themselves outside of scripture, which kept declarations beautifully simple, declaring Jesus as the Son of God, born of the virgin, the Word made flesh and dwelt among us, God manifest in the flesh
Most all full Christology simply needs these declarations, and related ones in Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms, Philippians, Colossians and other sections. We do not require complex formulations, from Trinitarians, Oneness or others. (for the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth, see sections here looking at the teaching of men like Arthur C. Custance, consistent with the archaeology discoveries of Ron Wyatt.)
As an example, and without controversy!
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
Can we improve beautiful declarations of this nature by making them into complex mind-bending creeds? I trow not!
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
We do know that modern version Vaticanus corruptions can destroy these declarations, and make Jesus into a begotten god, or take away the declaration that Jesus is "God manifest in the flesh".
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.
In this context, I learned that identifying the pure and perfect word of God comes first, and scriptural doctrines should then flow, like a river of life, out of the word of Scripture.
Last edited: