Mike, My reply is indeed late, and I apologize. I told you it would be a while for this one to come, but I didn't mean it to take this long. My apologies as well to any of your readers who have been following our exchange. With such a long gap, I hope my response is coherent and addresses the issues raised in your previous post. After muchconsideration, this will be my final submission in our exchange. I have thoroughly enjoyed "tangling" with you, and engaging in distilled Oneness thought. However, there is a limit to which two can exchange ideas before it becomes pointless. It seems that with each response, your claims to victory are more and more numerous. I trust that your readers will be able to make an informed decision based on what they read. If nothing else, our public exchange will enable them to launch into more specified study and inquiry. As I am primarily responding to your previous post, I would ask that you post nothing after this. Let your readers make up their own minds. If you wish to have one last exchange, my I suggest us each posting our top three reasons why we believe our own position is correct, and our top three reasons why we believe the other's is incorrect. Limit it to one page. Let me know what you think. As I re-read your most recent post, I am struck by how often you indict yourself when you attack Trinitarian logic. The very arguments you use against Trinitarian doctrine is what you use to prop up Oneness thought. Since so much time has elapsed since your previous post, I am simply writing bullet paragraphs on subjects you bring up.
Matthew 7.
It is very hard at times to completely follow your clouded thinking. The passage in Matthew 7 is refering to those who do not recognize Jesus as Lord, and therefore spend eternity in hell. Matthew 7 is not making reference to tangental doctrines such as the Godhead. Both of us would put that doctrine in a very important place, but I don't think either of us make it a doctrine necessary for receiving salvation. It is true that I argue one would generally not remain in the Oneness camp if truly indwelt and illuminated by the Holy Ghost, yet I would not make renouncing Oneness a condition for salvation. You must rightly divide the Word of God. This passage is refering to those who refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Lord.
Plato.
It is very surprising to me that you don't see my point in this. Since you claim that Martyr laid the ground work for Trinitarian dogma, one would expect that his fingerprints would be all over Puritanical writings. Yet when one examines Puritanical works, their theses are supported by Scripture ...not Martyr's or Plato's dogma. I am simply noting that if the groundwork of Trinitarian thought was pioneered byMartyr, and Martyr was influenced by Plato, one would expect to see traces of both of these men in later Trinitarian works. The truth is,you will never see Plato in Puritanical works. I chose the Puritans because they are godly men who were also prolific writers. You attempted to make a big splash with the Martyr/Plato connection. Frankly, you haveaccomplished little more than to perpetuate another Oneness red herring that has little or no implications on the subject at hand.
If what you are saying is true, it would be easy to spot Platonic thought in later Christian (Trinitarian) writing.
Colossians 1:17.
Mike, your arguments go from amusing to absurd. I don't think muchcomment is neccesary regarding your convoluted "exegesis" of Colossians 1, and I trust your readers will see that. Your understanding of the meaning "above" and "for" is wrong, but that's beside the point. There is a very simple and concise truth that is conveyed in this passage. The Son created everything, owns everything, and reigns supreme. As Creator God, He is eternal. The plain statement is that the Son is Creator. If you cannot yet see that that makes Him eternal, I do not know what will. Let your readers decide.
Mike, nowhere does Scripture say that God created the worlds with the Son in mind. That is not Scriptural and is a weak invention of Oneness writers to avert attention from the plain truth. You are not the first Oneness teacher to expouse this idea. This is an example of how you have been colored by previous Oneness teachers... this idea is not Scritptural, someone taught it to you.
To say that God created BY the Son is a very Trinitarian statement. In the mystery of the Godhead, there was perfect harmony in Creation, as there is in Salvation. The Son was not the sole Creator; God the Father created the worlds by the Son. In the mystery of the Godhead, we worship one true and living God, eternally existing in three persons. You may choose to disregard this because it is not logical, but I choose to believe it because it's Biblical.
Luke 1:35
Again, this is definitely my last pass at this verse. Mike, God is spirit. For Him to have a son, in the way you express, He must be SPIRIT, not human. How can God "beget" a son that is not like Him? God's Son does not have flesh and blood any more than my son is spirit(only). I've answered the issue of God the Son having a mother and don't need to address that again.
Luke 1:35 simply does not state what you want it to. The Person of the Son had a relationship with God the Father before His incarnation (John 1, Heb 1, Col 1). That the Holy Spirit placed the (human) seed inside Mary and initiated the incarnation does not replace the fact that the Son has a relationship to God the Father. Jesus is called the Son of God not because the Holy Spirit placed Him in Mary, as if He were His Father. No, He is called the Son of God because He is SINLESS, He is CREATOR GOD, He is ALMIGHTY! The Holy Spirit is drawing attention to the fact that this supernatural incarnation is bringing forth a very special baby. The Son of God is being manifest to take away the sins of the world. Jesus did not become the Son of God at His incarnation, but He SHALL BE CALLED the Son of God. The angel was simply making clear what He was to be called; that is, Who He already was. You can continue to propogate your teaching, Mike, but know that it does not find Scriptural support of any kind.
Regarding Ps 99:9 and John 4:24, you're missing the point. "Holy Spirt" is not a title nor is it a manifestation; it is a proper Name representing a real and distinct "Person". He can be lied to, resisted, and grieved. You posed a question that I cannot in good faith answer, because you doctored it to get what you want to hear. There is only one eternal father. Care is called for in that Jesus, God's Son, is referred to as our father. In that sense, He is our father and He is eternal.
Think about it Mike, He can't be eternally our father because we haven't existed eternally! God the Father, however, has always been a Father to the Son. THAT relationship is ETERNAL.
Furthermore, Hebrews 2 doesn't need to be such a mystery to you my friend. The Son is God; He created everything around you and upholds all things by HIS word. He was manifest, incarnated, in order to take away our sins. In sharing our humanity (Heb 2:14), he became a part of the human race. However, He is the federal head of the REDEEMED and Adam is the federal head of the LOST. In taking on human form (Phil 2), he can now call us His brothers. Mike, note the fact that special emphasis is always placed on the fact that He became flesh. If the Son did not exist beforehand as Spirit only, these statements would not be necessary. He is also called our father, as Abraham is also called the father of the redeemed. He is a Son to God the Father.
Jesus, the Son , is NEVER called the Holy Spirit. I've dealt with you on that before and need to go back to it. If you didn't get it then, you won't get it now.
Mike, I do not have the time to pursue you on whether or not God the Father is a proper name. A cursory reading of the New Testament should forever bury you arguement here. The NT is replete with personal actions being attributed to God the Father. In addition, Jesus and God the Father often interact on the pages of the NT. Funny how you always want to say they're one and the same when they are never said to be so and consistently separated and put alongside each other!
Mike, I'm sorry I don't have the time to answer you in more depth. I am skipping down to page 9 now. You ask if John 1 is referring to God the Father and the Son. John 1 is indeed referring to God the Father and the Son, Jesus. The context does not allow you to haphazardly insert "Son"for "Word". You create a pathetic straw man by trying to insert "Son" where it wasn't written. You prove nothing by this silly ploy. Instead, you ought to insert "Jesus", Who is the Son of God. To say that the Son began at the incarnation is rubbish when it is so clearly and forcefully written elsewhere that He created and sustains all things by HIS POWER. By harmonizing Scripture, I can with authority say that the Word (Who is Jesus, the Son of God) was with the Father and partook in creation with Him. A beautiful picture of the Trinity.
John 14:10
A classic example of Oneness selective theology. This verse says that the Father is in Jesus. Aha! you say. See? The incarnation is the Father indwelling the Son. The Father is God indwelling the human Son. This is so rediculous that I can hardly keep typing! First, you say that Jesus IS the Father. So, how could the Father indwell Himself? Second, this verse says that the Son also indwells the Father! Just as the Father and Son shared glory before the world began, just as they existed together from eternity past, just as they partook in creation together...they live in magnificant, divine harmony. The Son is the image of the Father. They share the same subsistance, attributes, etc. This verse in no way supports Oneness. In the same way the Father indwells the Son, the SON indwells the FATHER! I doubt you're willing to go there. This is a beautiful Trinitarian verse. Be sure to quote and exegete the entire verse in the future...not just the part that appears to support you.