|
|
|
|
Arguments of Oneness adherents answered There are quite a few different views in the Oneness churches of how to interpret who is God. Theye know the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as always the one person . Some say that he changes from one to another (this is the most ancient form of oneness) being the Father first in creation, the Son in redemption and now the Holy Spirit. Others Say the Father is the Holy Spirit and that the Son is his humaness in which the father dwelt in. Others will say that the one person who is God manifests in all three at the same time but they are not persons. Another says that these are modes, titles. that the Holy Spirit is the Father who incarnated in the Son (humanity) so that he is deity. All concentrate on the strict singularity that God is one, and one person only. As trinitarians we believe there is only one God but that is not in reference to his person, but in his nature as being the one God.That he exists as certain identities that are always there. these identities can do other functions as messenger or priest or but it does not change who they are. This is to explain and refute their main arguments 1. The word Trinity is not found in the bible ! Answer- The word Trinity or eternal Son is not specifically found in the Bible. But the concept is. This doesn’t seem to stop Oneness from using their non biblical terminology to explain their own beliefs. Where does it say the Holy Ghost is the Father or that Jesus calls the Father Jesus, or the Father calls Jesus the Father or the H.Spirit? Where do we find the word Oneness, where does it teach or specifically say the word for father or Son are modes or roles.nowhere does it say all three are manifestations . There are many words used to describe doctrines that are not found in the scripture. The word Bible is not specifically found in the Bible, should we dispense with that too! Certainly the word Oneness is not! We all use terms such as chapter and verse, even numbers that are not in the original writings. If they were consistent in their beliefs and theological position, they would not believe in chapter and verse and would remove these from their Bibles as well. Although the word Trinity is not found in the scriptures we can see the concept is clearly expressed. We find several times it is God himself who states he is plural in persons. Oneness adherents neglect these descriptions and major on all the singular descriptions.Isa.48:16 2. Where does it say God is three persons? Answer- it does not say this in a sentence but it is a biblical conclusion onew comes to by studying and seeing that there are three called God. Originally onewness said there were three manifestations. now they have added moreWe believe that Abraham, Moses, John and Peter were not only persons, but different persons. Yet, nowhere does it specifically say they are persons. When we read of angels such as Michael or Gabriel we know they are persons, just as we know Satan who is a Spirit being is a person. but the Bible never specifically says they are persons. The term "person" should not be restricted to human beings alone, since angels are personal subjects also. Using this word is an accommodation of our human language to show individual identity. They have consciousness, they are intelligent, they have will and they communicate. this makes distinct in identity. we might ask wehre does it say God is one person. it only states God is one. So the question is one what? If both appear at the same time are they not two different persons. If they communicate and discuss and plan then they are personal identities.As humanity we all share together human nature, yet we are all different persons. As the One God there are only three that share in his nature as God. "When we use the word person we are trying to differentiate between who is who in personality. For in all languages the words Father and Son are personal and not nominal designations; to say our Lord intended these words to have merely nominal signification, while in all languages they have a personal signification, is to say he employed language more likely to deceive than to instruct; and not only so, but he commanded others to perpetuate the same deception down to the end of time;" (Christian theology 5th ed. P.67-73) If God is a personal being, a person, (not a human person of course) than the Father is a person, so is the Son and the Holy Spirit. each time one of these appears they are a person. So when the Father appears he is that person who is God and when the Son appears he is that person. Therefore by logic if all three appear at the same time, (which they do) they are three persons who are the one God. God who became man is a person not a percentage. When it says Jesus is the exact image of God should we not think of him as a person who has the nature of God. And in who's image is he exactly like? Another who is a person, his Father. If the image is a person so is the one he is the image of (not physical). Oneness claims Father and Son are only titles of a single person, who is God. The terms of the Son and Father are not titles of a single person, but different titles that belong to two different personalities. This is seen clearly as Jesus said the father sernt him FROM heaven. 3. How can all three be equal in power, if Jesus prayed to the Father? Oneness views the Son praying to the Father as only a man. So it is not persons that are in relevant dialogue as two who’s, but only natures. This becomes only an illusion of two individual persons for Jesus is only speaking to the father. Which means he is totally a human, not God but only talks to God. This means Jesus is not God but only the father who is in him using his body as a vehicle.Which means he is not one person as the God man but God in man. If one can understand the emptying of Christ in Phil.2:5-8 this whole problem is resolved. If they allow the scripture to speak, and ponder it, it becomes clear what is transspiring. The mistake is to assume that for their to be communication one must be less in nature than another. This was not an emptying of his deity, as a substance change of nature but a putting aside of his position and independent use of power. By giving up his independent use of his divine attributes he became a servant depending on the Holy Spirit for his strength and the Father for his instructions. When one becomes a slave the do not give up their skills but submits to another in a higher position. (this is why at that time he said "the Father is greater than I" Jn.14:28. Positionally he was.) The mistake made is that one confuses subjection with inferiority. For example Jesus in Lk.2:51-52 was subject to his parents. Here we have the God/man who is subjecting himself to two sinful humans. Certainly he was superior in position and nature to both, being their creator. Jesus also put himself under the law, being subject to its commands to fulfill it perfectly. Certainly he being the one who gave the law was greater, yet he willingly put himself under it as both God and man. If it was the Father who lowered himself, who did he become obedient to ? One does not serve and obey from the flesh only, but the whole person is involved. This is most important when it comes to Jesus. Christ is the God/man obeying the Father. It does not say only in his the humanity that he was lowered. Vs.5 "Who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. 7: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Notice that the one he is describing first existed in the nature of God and continues in this nature. He then put aside his reputation taking on another form (nature) of a servant, being made a man. Which was added to his deity. Notice it states he was equal with God at the same time existing in his form(nature) this is what is expressed in Jn.1:1. Scripture presents Jesus being sent from heaven made a little lower than the angels, that he humbled himself as both God and man, not just as a man, he was one whole person (Heb.2:9; Phil.2:5-8). Then in due time he was highly exalted, Jesus was not on earth doing his ministry in a exalted state but in a state of humility, until after his resurrection. When he recieved all authority, what he had previously, from the Father. If Jesus as the Son is only human then who is the divine nature communicating back to only a man a nature, a hunk of flesh. God speaks to our spirit? Doesn’t our spirit operate through our mind. Jesus did not have two minds! One human and one divine. Can only the flesh communicate to God without the life in it. If you keep quiet and speak internally in your heart can God hear you? Of course. Is that your flesh communing with him or your Spirit? Can the body without the spirit communicate to God ? Of course it can, when we die, we still have the ability to communicate with God without the Body. If Jesus was praying to the Father, why speak toward heaven if the Father was located inside him. The simple answer is that the Father was never incarnated, just as Jesus said he alonne has seen the father. 1 Tim.3:16 "God was manifested in the flesh" (appeared in)he was the fulness of God in bodily form 1 tim.3:16. 1 Jn.4:2; 2 Jn. 7 "came in the flesh". This is what is called the emptying of Christ. God is a person being. But the Holy Spirit and the Father did not become flesh. #4. the Holy Ghost conceived Jesus then he must be his Father. This is where the Oneness’ flaw of personhood begins. If one does not know who incarnated or who the begetter is they certainly will be confused on the relationship the Son has with the Father. If he is "God with us" then he is a person and if he is a person then he is different then the begetter no matter what theological meaning you pour into it. Otherwise the begetter becomes the begotten. Which is iexactly what they do. God was not literally his Father anymore than the devil was literally the Pharisees Father. Jesus who was begot by the holy spirit in his humanity. To be the son of meant having the same "nature of" but it is not passed on the same way as mankind. God did not become Jesus’ Father from his being born into the world. He is called the Son prior to his birth and the Father exists as well before he was born. So his birth did not begin his sonship. he is both 100% man and 100% God. He is one person. That it is, true God who became flesh, anything less than this makes the incarnation not a true event. The Son of God came in the flesh as the Son of man. The confusion comes from his premise that the Spirit who begot him is in Jesus as the Father. As the Son he is one person with two natures, human and deity. The Son of God came in the flesh as the Son of man. The confusion comes from his premise that the Spirit who begot him is in Jesus as the Father. Isa.7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel, God with us. Here we find the Son is God not just a human. Lk.1:35 "he will be called the Son of God. Son = God. Vs.32 he is called "the Son of the highest". Meaning the Son he has the same nature of deity as his Father. And since his Father is a person so is he as the Son. So we need to distinguish persons from their sharing in common the same essence. If The Holy Ghost is the Father of Jesus Christ" and "Jesus is the Father, Son and Spirit" .Doesn’t this make the Holy Ghost the Father of the Father, Son and Spirit. So he conceived and fathered himself , thats a real miracle! How can he be all three if they are all temporary modes he changes into, he can only be one person at a time. Remember there is no trinity in Oneness. Also how can Jesus who is God be the Son who is only humanity as well as the Father who is deity who is also the Holy Spirit? The bible makes distinctions even in the virgin birth, they do not. Isa.9:6 If the Son is the everlasting Father" Doesn't this make the Son the Father, but not the Father the Son. Is the humaness the father? "As christ was made of the substance of the virgin, so he was not made of the substance of the holy ghost, whose essence cannot at all be made. And because the holy ghost did not beget him by any communication of his essence, therefore he is not the Father of him, though he were conceived by him ."( Dean Alford the four gospels pub.1863 quoting Pearson on the creed p.165,166) In other words in Isa.9:6 "a child would be born", this refers to his birth and humanity. It also says ‘a Son will be given" this refers to his nature of deity since he already was the Son in his pre-existence. He is sent from heaven as the Son, who is eternal alongside the Father.God gave his only begotten son. The Bible tells us it was the Son who incarnated, it was the Son who was begotten. It was the Father who is attributed as the begetter. If one makes them all one person then it was the Father who was incarnated and died for our sins The Bible shows that there are all three persons involved in the incarnation. the trinity was developed by Rome #5 Trinitarians destroyed all our literature they are following Rome! Oneness claims the trinity doctrine was not a fully developed until the fourth century. But it was modalism that was developed in the beginning it was one ata time now they believe they can have 3 manifestations simulatneously but none of them are persons.Why? because if one manifestation is a person then it follows the others must be as well. The earliest vesiges of modalism are foiund in the late 100's and was held as differemnt views as time went on. The trinity is found even earlier especially the writings of Jesus being God as the son pof God.The trinity was udsed before Tertullian or Irenaeus debated with Oneness . so thre argument of development for the trinity is weak if it is already being defemnded in the church in different locations. Oneness can only jump in the barrel and go over the falls with this view. to say the trinity is developed is to also agree theirs was as well.. This goes against the legalistic view spoken of by their teachers from the pulpit but it cannot be proven by history. so it then becomes a matter of their own biased opinion, just like the JW's Unfortunately the Oneness has very little ancient literature and all our information comes from the Trinitarian side. The same goes for Arianism. Arguments as well as acussations are used to blame the trinitarians for disposing of them, with absolutely NO proof at all. The Catholic church killed them they say.This is pure speculation. since anyone who claimed to be a Christian was underground and thaT THERE WAS NO CATHOLIC CHURCH LIKE THEY SAY. Or when michael servetus was killed instigated by Calvin because he became a monarchian. Well Calvin did approve of others killed who were also trinitarians so this proves nothing except his bent on doctrine justified force which romes influnce was left with him .We find there were many trinitarians killed in the early church. It was Rome that killed all the believers, not the Church. History shows the Church was underground until it was made legal in the empire to be a Christian in the 300's.We also find the Trinitarians were run out of Rome. history shows The first one who wanted to be the Pope over all the empire was a Oneness adherent (Callistus who was a Roman).It was oneness that was taught in Rome for almost 50 years after Constantine. so the trinity traced to him is falsehood promoted by those who demonize the term. The trinity being developed in the 4th century is an old lie passed down for so long that anyone who hates the triune God and does not read the early church writings wants to believe this. This rumor is patently false. The trinity was written of as early as 160 Ad which leads many to consider it being taught much earlier. the same would go for the deity since it is begun to be mentioned from 120- 160. the church did not teach it is another rumor spread by J.W's which other anti trinitarians embrace. there are a only a few references of it earlier does this mean it was developed as well. Of course not. This was when chistianity was illegal, yet Ireneaus states the whole church believed the same thing. #6 God is manifested in the flesh therefore they are three manifestations of God. there may be many more according to the way oneness denies identity of persons. Every title becomes a manifestation, when they are not. for example Jesus being a prophet and a priest at the same time does not make him a different person. nor will he change when he rules as king. One has to differentiate with his activities and who it is in those activities. wheteher it is the Son, the ftaher or the comforter. #7 The apostles were told to baptize in Jesus name only. Not so, it says that others who were baptized were immersed in Jesus name. Jesus never said in Mt.28 to baptize in his name. But to baptize in the name of and names only three in the exact order of their procession and position in Scripture.
Mt 28 can't be the name of Jesus for all three because we don't find Jesus the son calling the father Jesus nor calling the holy spirit Jesus.
Vincients notes on Mt 28:19 The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord’s Prayer ("Hallowed be they name"), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. Acts 22:16 states that the name of Jesus is called upon in baptism. The greek One does not have to say his name to do his will or an activity.It
simply means that they had Jesus authority to baptize as we have his authority to pray and
do good works. #8 we only see one on the throne so how can anyone see God The revealation of God will always be Jesus. He was God made visible. father is in jesus Jesus is in the father . since the father is everywhere omnipresent.we find that Jesus the God man is beside the father and the bible shows them as distinct individuals. They share the same nature not the same person #9 he is called the eternal word who is God not the eternal son. Not so, the bible calls the son eternal and it calls the Son the word who is God. the word is a representation of the Son as it explains something about him.Just as He is called the beginning and end and the alpha and omega.Oneness states everywhere the son is used it is always a future tense. again this is false. It dsays absolutely plain that God made the worlds through the Son. So he has tpo bew present to abe attributed as the creator otherwise the word is lying. #10 Jesus said He is the comforter. He will send the holy spirit in his name. When we look in Mt 24 and he
says many will come in his name obviously they mean they were Jesus himself as this would
mean if interpreted by oneness but that they come with his approval and in his authority. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." How does we and our not mean more than one? And if admittingly they are more than one than does the flesh of Jesus live with us.If Jesus thought of the father and the Spirit as others than himself shouldn't we?
|
|
|
