ONENESS/TRINITY DEBATE
WITH COLIN SEAGER - Part 12

JULY 2002

MIKE:

Hi Colin. I received this note from you in December 2001, and I finally got around to respond here in July 2002. This has been drawn out. Haha!

Let me respond to your points in this email, followed by the top three reasons why I cannot accept Trinity doctrine.

MATTHEW 7 AND THE MAJORITY

Colin, you began your last submission to me by calling my reasoning "clouded thinking." You substantiated that by saying you felt that my application of Matthew 7 can never apply to our discussion concerning Godhead. My point was that the majority of people will never enter the narrow path. That is what Jesus said in Matthew 7. You said, "The passage in Matthew 7 is referring to those who do not recognize Jesus as Lord, and therefore spend eternity in hell."

Well, you are incorrect on your first count in this one. Matthew 7 is not about people who do not recognize Jesus as Lord. In fact the opposite is true. He said these people will refer to Him, saying, "Lord, Lord." Therefore, they indeed do recognize Him as Lord. He said so Himself!

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

So you're wrong there. And with that in mind, the words preceding this passage has Jesus speaking of false prophets and how to distinguish them. Jesus is speaking about the narrow path. We know that Jesus is the Way. He is the only way to the Father. There is no other way to get to the Father than by the Son of God.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:13-15)

The way is Narrow. Would you not agree that Jesus is the only way to the Father? And since He is the ONLY way, that makes the Way quite narrow? The principle of this fact is applied to this passage. Jesus showed us that false prophets include people who call Jesus "Lord," and who actually question the Lord as to how He could not know them since they cast out devils in His name and did miracles in His name. I am saying this principle applies to you, in my mind -- not in the sense that you are necessarily lost, but in the sense that you are going by what the majority believes in order to determine your doctrine of the Godhead to a degree. You must! Just your mention of the majority of Christendom is enough for me to say that. These folks were surprised Jesus rejected them. That means they fully expected Him to accept them. In other words, they felt certain they were heaven bound. They were deceived. When one is deceived one does not know one is in error. And Jesus said there is the vast majority of people who walk the broad road to destruction.

You are claiming the majority of Christianity believes Trinity, so that must somehow make Trinity doctrine proven as correct. Although you noted that counting heads does not valididate a tenet of faith, you still continue to speak as though it did. I am saying the principle of judging by the vast majority is what Jesus is speaking against! How many times has Jesus stressed how the "few" will ever be correct? Peter even said that few, that is, eight souls, were saved, and compared that day of Noah with the last days. I am pointing out your error in judging truth by simply counting heads. And you cannot see where Jesus is warning us against judging by the majority? You assume all trinitarians are saved, and therefore contend that Matthew 7's reference to the lost and the broad road cannot apply to our issues at all. But, can you not see your circular reasoning? Where does the Bible say trinity is even truth, let alone where all trinitarians are saved? Man, that is the entire point of our debate! The Bible does not teach trinity anywhere! Its only supposedly "alluded" to. But I refuse to base my faith upon a supposed allusion, without any explicit teaching. God is One. Period. Leave it at that.


So please refrain from trying to stand upon what the vast majority of so-called Christianity believes, and rather base your points upon what the vast majority of scripture teaches in explicit terms.

You said, "You must rightly divide the Word of God. This passage is referring to those who refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Lord." Colin, read verses 21 - 23 again and note that you are very wrong.


PURITANICAL TEACHING AND PLATO

You continue to refer to Puritanical writings in rebuttal to my accusations of your doctrine being tainted by Platonic thought regarding the Logos. Colin, I know no more about puritanical writings than I do the pages of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps many of their writings would receive a hearty "Amen" from me. I don't know. But, they're not the Bible writings. And I asked you whether or not Puritans considered Justin Martyr as one of their Church Fathers. Why did I ask? Because Martyr stood upon Plato's words, when debating the heathens, as proper understanding about the Trinity. So, do the Puritans believe Martyr was a "church father"? Yes or no will suffice.

You say that Puritanical writings cannot be found to contain Platonic thought. I would not know one way or the other. But if the Puritans believed trinitarianism, then Platonic thought indeed is infected into their thoughts. For example, it was Platonic thought, as proposed by Justin Martyr, that taught the LOGOS in John 1:1 is Platonic. In fact, even modern trinitarians believe that John actually knew about Plato's Logos doctrine, and that is why he used the term LOGOS. However, John did no such thing. My estimation is that John simply referred to the idea of God's THOUGHT, without any inkling of some elaborate and pagan LOGOS doctrine of Plato's.

So you tell me. Did the Puritans think the LOGOS was John's reference to Plato's Logos idea?


COLOSSIANS 1:16-17

Let me address your reference to my thoughts about Colossians 1:17.

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:17)

You said, "Your understanding of the meaning 'above' and 'for' is wrong, but that's beside the point." Man, you're talking through your hat! My thoughts are perfectly on the money in that regard! Look at the definition in the Greek, for yourself, Mr Seager.

pro : a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to:--above, ago, before, or ever. In the comparative, it retains the same significations. (Strong's Concordance)

"BEFORE" means the same as "ABOVE". Where do you get the idea this is incorrect? What lexicon are you using? It means SUPERIOR TO. How can you say I am wrong? These are not my own thoughts, by the thoughts of scholars, Colin. Come, now!

And Paul's use of FOR THE SON, in itself, does not demand that the Son exist at the time of creation. It simply says creation was made with the Son in mind. It was for the Son to rule over. It was FOR Him. Something can be made for a person before the person is born. A father can make a cradle for his unborn child.

In verse 17, Paul said that Christ is pre-eminent above all things. And all things consist by Him.

You claim it's so very simple and straight forward that this passage says the Son created everything, demanding that the Son be in existence when creation occurred.

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:13-17)

We read that it is "by Him" that everything consists.

You said, "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."

All I am doing is basing my views on all scriptures that relate to the same idea of creation. We cannot take a single verse and ignore other verses of the same issue to prove a point, when those other verses supply further clarification of the question in mind. Sure, it looks like the Son existed at the time of creation, if you take that verse alone, and not deal with the other verses that speak of the same issue.

I already showed you that Romans 5 spoke about Adam when creation occurred. It informs us that God had Jesus Christ in mind when Adam was created. It says He was made in the figure of Him that was to come. If the Son actually existed when creation occurred, since the Son did the creating, then why do we read the Son was "to come"? Why do we not instead read, "the figure of Him who already existed," or "the figure of Him that was"?

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14)

Sometimes passages are not saying what one might initially think. Again, I told this to you before, but I once thought Psalm 2:7 spoke of the manger birth of Christ.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psa 2:7)

But Paul interpreted it otherwise, saying it referred to the resurrection.

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33

It does not require some gnostic exclusivism to understand the passage. Just some homework and comparison with other verses. Col 1:16-17 is speaking about God's foreknowledge of creating all with the Son in mind, just as Romans 5:14 says Adam was created with the Son in mind, who had not yet come! Ignore it all you like, but Romans 5:14 shows creation with the Son in mind, and you cannot ignore these references to creation that involve the Son in looking at Col. 1:16-17.

You said, "this idea is not Scriptural,." Wrong! Romans 5:14 shows it is indeed scriptural!

You said, "To say that God created BY the Son is a very Trinitarian statement." Correction: Trinitarian dogma has its own underlying interpretation of this verse that you are trained to recall when you see such statements. Your trinitarians stained glasses cause you to see Son as Jesus alone, and Father as another person, although scripture never teaches Father is another "person" from the Son. You are agreeing that BY THE SON is a phrase implying usage, as though the Son were a tool in the hands of the Father. I agree. However, since you claim the Son existed at the time of creation, you say the use of the Son is quite different from my views on the Son's use. We both agree the Son was used. But I am saying the Son was used as a tool in the sense that the Son was a reference point for the creation of Adam according to Romans 5:14. And Romans explicitly says the Son had not yet come at the time of creation, but was to come. That demands lack of His presence being changed in the future by His "coming".


LUKE 1:35

You insist that Luke 1:35 is not saying the Lord was called "the son of God" because God was His Father and Mary mothered Him. Why? -- I'll never know. You have to ignore actual grammar and the very definition of words to say I am incorrect. You have to seriously do some absolute hiding of your head in the sand to state this. Colin, please do a search of the definition for the word "Therefore."


Webster said the following is the definition of THEREFORE:

In other words, Colin, the statement following "therefore" in Luke 1:35 is true because of the previously mentioned facts.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.(Luke 1:35)

Look at it slowly.

The baby would be called the Son of God because of previously stated reasons. What reasons?

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee"

Did you read that? Mary was told the Holy Ghost would impregnate her, and God's power would be the reason for her impregnation. Ever notice God is called "Father"? This is why.

So we might as well be reading: "Mary, because you will become pregnant due to the power of God overshadowing you, acting as Father in begetting a child, the baby that will born of you will be called the Son of God."

or...

"The baby will be called the son of God for this reason: God's Spirit will cause you to become pregnant."

Now, if you disagree with that, then you better not comment upon Luke 1:35 anymore, because you are trying to say words have lost all meaning.

You said, "God is spirit. For Him to have a son, in the way you express, He must be SPIRIT, not human"

What?!!

How can you claim that? The way I am saying that God is having a Son is through a flesh and blood human being named Mary! That is my whole argument! How can you say I am demanding that the Son be pure Spirit? You are either ignoring my entire thought, or not even understanding my point for you to say that.

You ask, "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)."

You are forgetting the entire point I am making with Mary's involvement. You're so jam-packed with trinity thinking that clear verses and words that teach the only reason Jesus is called Son of God is due to the human birthing process that God took advantage of, with the only difference of making Himself the Father in the process. The Son got His human flesh and blood from Mary, Colin! You cannot compare you having a son with God having a Son, since, in God's case, Spirit (God) and humanity (Mary) were the parents! How can you compare your fatherhood with God's in this case? That is not even sensible, Colin.

But you continue to say, "Luke 1:35 simply does not state what you want it to"

Oh, yes it does. All that I did was say it in synonymous terms. What in the world does Luke 1:35 actually say, in your own words, if it does not say what I propose?

You said, "The Person of the Son had a relationship with God the Father 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."

What?! See what I mean? You have to throw in all sorts of extrabiblical thought, such as "the person of God the Son existed before the incarnation, and through this incarnation, the Son had a specific relationship with the Father by the Father putting Him into the womb of Mary as a seed." That is nonsense! Think of it! You are throwing in all kinds of extrabiblical statements. Nothing in the Bible says what you claim. Say its alluded to all you like, but its not there. All that this verse is saying is that God plus a human Mary had a boy child. That is the reason the child is called Son of God. Get it? God is father. Baby is Son. Mother is Mary. Sonship involves Mary! And this is the ONLY verse that ever gives a reason -- a "therefore" -- as to the existence of the title SON OF GOD. Nothing else in the Bible comes close. And you cannot accept that.

I challenge you to think that this verse is saying similar words to the statement, "Because Michael Blume impregnated Iris Blume, the baby is called the Son of Michael."

Colin, put yourself in Mary's shoes. Mary is hearing an angel talk to her of a child she is going to have. And he is telling her who the Father is. GOD! So she is told that the child will be called the Son of God. See? Its so easy to see.

You said, "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!"

I cannot believe what I am reading. I agree that He is sinless. I agree that He is Creator and Almighty! But Gabriel is explicitly saying that He is called Son of God because of the birth process. And you might as well call Gabriel a liar as to say Jesus is called Son of God for other reasons. And you claim I am ignoring simple and plain statements in the Bible!

You said, " 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 propagate your teaching, Mike, but know that it does not find Scriptural support of any kind."

The angel is telling her why the child would be called Son of God. THEREFORE..... Read the definition of THEREFORE again. Put the thought of Luke 1:35 into the words using the definition of THEREFORE, Colin

I still cannot get over you refusal to accept this thought.


IS "HOLY SPIRIT" A PROPER NAME?

You said, "'Holy Spirit' 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 absolutely cannot say that HOLY SPIRIT is a name because the one who is called HOLY SPIRIT can be lied to, resisted and grieved, as a person can experience these things. That is nonsense! That is like saying "Janitor" is a personal name because janitors can be lied to, as people. What has personal attributes got to do with whether or not the word is a personal name or merely a title?

"Persons" have "titles", too, you know.


ETERNAL FATHER

Then you take my reference to Isaiah 9:6, where we read Jesus is called "eternal Father", and say, "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. "

You are avoiding the entire issue! You said yourself that Isaiah 9:6 is in reference to us and Jesus. Jesus is our Father. And now you are waffling and saying that it refers to the relationship between God the Father and the God the Son.

How on earth, or in heaven, can Jesus be the eternal Father in relationship to the Father? You said that Isaiah 9:6's reference to EVERLASTING FATHER refers to the relationship between Jesus and us, and not God the Father and God the Son. And now you are saying that because God the Father has eternally been in relationship to God the Son, then ETERNAL FATHER refers to Jesus as God's Son for eternity! This is really getting weird, Colin!

It was you who said Jesus is called eternal Father in relationship to us. And now you are saying, "He can't be eternally our father because we haven't existed eternally!"

You wrote in COLIN7.HTM these words: "His fatherhood has nothing to do with His relation with God the Father,nor is it saying that He IS God the Father. Understand that Jesus is a father to us, but to God the Father He is a Son."

And then you wrote: "This phrase has to do with His relation to BELIEVERS, not GOD the Father."

You also wrote: "Jesus is the Son of GOD, yet the Father of BELIEVERS. You are misunderstanding this verse to be referring to His relation to God. Understood correctly,there is no 'problem' with this verse. I am a son to my father, yet a father to my children. In different contexts, I can be referred to as a son or a father. The same is true of the Son, Jesus Christ. God opened my eyes to this as I was recently reading through Hebrews. Hebrews 2:13 brilliantly brings all of this out in one sentence: ...'Behold I and the children which God hath given me'. Who is speaking? Jesus. Who are His children? The redeemed, the church (people). Who gave them to Him? God the Father (John 6:37). So, in one verse, Jesus is both a Son (to God the Father) and a father (to the redeemed)."

All of that surrounded your thoughts on Isaiah 9:6's reference to Jesus as ETERNAL FATHER. And now you completely reverse your stance in that letter, and say that the note of "eternal" in "eternal Father" deals with the relationship of God the Father and God the Son, because that alone is eternal. You are absolutely confusing in your thoughts! This makes no sense at all!

Colin, if Jesus is eternal Father to us believers, as you stated, then how on earth, or in heaven, does the idea of eternal have to do exclusively with the relationship of God the Father and Jesus Christ? You said yourself the relationship is NOT between God the Father and Jesus, but between Jesus and we believers.

You said, "Hebrews 2 doesn't need to be such a mystery to you my friend." Its no mystery to me, Colin. However, you said Hebrews 2:3 tells of Jesus being our Father. You said, "Hebrews 2:13 brilliantly brings all of this out in one sentence: ...'Behold I and the children which God hath given me'. Who is speaking? Jesus. Who are His children?"

And I pointed out that the same Chapter calls Jesus our brother! So here you have Jesus as our Father, by your own admission, and that is in reference to the relationship between Jesus Christ and ourselves -- believers. And the same book says...

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, (Heb 2:11)

So how can His relationship to us be that of Father and Brother? It's not mystery to me. This is basic Oneness teaching. It's the very foundation of Oneness. We have a single person fulfilling two different manifestations to us in the form of two different relationships to us. You can already see Oneness principle at work according to your own beliefs in this case. Jesus, in His relationship to us as believers, is both FATHER and BROTHER.

You said that he is "Father" in the sense that He is federal head of the redeemed. The only problem is that you cannot find any biblical statement for Adam being called mankind's FATHER because he is federal head of the lost. In order to prove that Jesus is called "Father" simply because He is federal head of the redeemed, in the sense that Adam is federal head of the lost, you have to prove that Adam is indeed called "father". And he is not. Satan is called "father" of the lost. Jesus told the Pharisees they were of their "father the devil". And Christ is Father of the redeemed. You cannot contrast Adam with Christ in this sense of fatherhood. It is more biblical to contrast Satan with Christ. But never is Adam called father of the lost. In fact, the two terms FATHER and ADAM are never found in the same verse in the entire Bible!

And you say that taking on human form makes Him our Brother. I agree. But I cannot agree with your former statement about Christ as Father, because it is not biblical.

So think about it. Christ is our Father according to Revelation 21:7 and Isaiah 9:6. You agree. He is our Father. And God the Father is also OUR FATHER, because Christ said so in the Lord's prayer. So, how many OUR FATHER's are there? I know you won't answer that question, but it's not because I doctored it up. It's a valid question when you consider Rev. 21:7, Isaiah 9:6 and Matthew 6:9. God the Father has a relationship to us as FATHER. And you are saying Christ also has a relationship to us as Father. So how many persons in the Godhead do we have a relationship with as Father?

You agree that Christ is God. Praise God! And God the Father is God. So you are saying we have Two eternal Fathers. ANd do not forget that Christ is called Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6, and that is in reference to us!

You must agree that God the Father is an eternal Father. But you say the term "eternal" cannot relate to us (even though "eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6 relates to us). Here is the truth, Colin. Christ is eternal. He is God the Father. And He is eternal. And He is also now our Father. Being our Eternal Father does not demand that we exist eternally. It simply means that the One who is presently our Father is also eternal. It is not saying He is acting as our Father eternally. Its like saying "the big orange pumpkin." The pumpkin is not orange because it is big. It was orange when it was smaller, too. So "big, orange" does not demand that the pumpkin was always "big" so long as it was "orange". Same with "eternal Father".


JESUS AND HOLY SPIRIT

You say that Jesus is never called "Holy Spirit". How do you explain the reason Jesus said that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit, in the same chapter He said He will never leave us "comfortless"? How many "comforters" do we have?

How do you explain why Jesus said the one who was WITH them would soon be IN THEM, in the context of John 14:17's reference to the Holy Ghost.

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (Joh 14:17)

Is not Jesus the TRUTH?

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (John 14:18)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

And God is ONE, after all!


IMPLICATION OF INTERACTION BETWEEN FATHER AND SON

You said, concerning the Father and the Son, "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!"

Here is the big question. And this will be one of the reasons I list as to why I cannot accept the Trinity. You are making the oft-repeated mistake of demanding that the distinction between two distinct terms of God be that of persons. You see FATHER alongside SON, and demand that it means two distinct persons. However, does my title as Pastor and my other title as Husband demand I be two separate persons when those terms are spoken of me in one sentence? Of course not.

Yes, I agree FATHER and SON are distinct. But I am arguing that they are not distinct persons. One person has three distinct manifestations. You are using grammar to prove multiplicity of persons in the Godhead. But your use of grammar in this example for your proof is absolutely inconclusive.

You will never accept it, but hopefully our readers can see it clearly, how that your reasoning is ill reasoning. If your argument is valid that Jesus and God the Father are two persons simply because the terms are used aside each other in the same verse, then by the SAME ARGUMENT you have to say that Jesus is not God, because "Jesus" and "God" are in the same verse aside one another also. But you ignore that thought. So....

Here is a list of verses showing JESUS alongside GOD.

I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; (1Co 1:4)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6)

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Co 15:57)

Why is Paul distinguishing the Father from Jesus by saying "GOD and JESUS"? Is not Jesus also God? Yes indeed! Why, then, does Paul say "GOD AND JESUS"? You only ignore this reasoning, although it's clearly showing the error of your method of interpreting the natures of the Father and Son.


JOHN 1:1

I asked you 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. You agree that it does. But then you say, "The context does not allow you to haphazardly insert 'Son' for 'Word'."

You should have said "the trinity doctrine" does not allow you to insert the term SON instead of WORD. Not the context. Context is totally against your reasoning. The only way context can work here, is if the trinity doctrine were absolute truth, explicitly taught in scripture. But it's not there. This is the reason I have stated so many many times that you have to believe in a backdrop doctrine that is not stated in the Bible in order to believe these verses propose trinity thought. I am sure that if John believed in the Trinity, he would have wrote about it somewhere in teaching terms!

So, if the verse is speaking about SON and FATHER, then who in this verse is the Son in the verse? And who in this verse is the Father?

You said, "Instead, you ought to insert 'Jesus', Who is the Son of God." You said, "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."

Okay, let's be consistent then. Context demands it!

John 1:1 says IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.

You said that Jesus, the Son of God was with the Father, and claim that is the meaning of the words "THE WORD WAS WITH GOD". Jesus, the Son of God, was with the Father. That is what you wrote, right? Look again carefully.

You claim that the term "WORD" in John 1:1's phrase of "THE WORD WAS WITH GOD" is referring to the Son of God, Jesus. And you claim the term "GOD" refers to "God the Father". You have to be consistent with the verse, if you say that, and finish the verse by saying "AND THE SON OF GOD WAS THE FATHER". That is not haphazardly inserting "Son" in the verse. It is using your own synonyms and being consistent with them.

What tells you that GOD in one phrase means GOD THE FATHER, but GOD in the next clause does not mean GOD THE FATHER? What law are you basing this reasoning upon? You are here betrayed as basing your thoughts on extrabiblical tenets of the TRINITY DOCTRINE, and not the verse, itself, because there is nothing in this verse that demands GOD refer to "God the Father" in one clause and not in another. You are most likely so steeped in trinity doctrine that you will not go any further with that verse, because you refuse to see the plainness of your inconsistency. I am not being mean, just factual.


JOHN 14:10

You cite John 14:10, and claim we take it as saying the Father is Jesus.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
(Joh 14:10)


That verse teaches Oneness in a way you are not understanding. You think you know what we teach about this verse, but clearly you do not.

You claim that the thought of the Father indwelling the Son makes it impossible for Jesus to be the Father. So you say, "So, how could the Father indwell Himself?"

Colin, you are still not understanding our concept of Son and Father. You must understand what we believe about the two before you make such accusations of folly. The name JESUS is not restricted to the Son of God. Get this again, and please get it right this time. My NAME is Mike. My offices are PASTOR, HUSBAND and FATHER. A husband, by all definitions of the term, is not necessarily a Pastor. But the NAME MIKE is common to all three offices. So just because a pastor is not a husband, this does not mean that Mike is not both a Pastor and a Husband. When you think of Mike as Pastor you cannot think of him as husband. These are two very distinct items. But not in person. The distinction is in office or role. You can say the PERSON of the PASTOR MIKE BLUME is the same PERSON as the HUSBAND MIKE BLUME. But HUSBAND is not PASTOR.

Similarly, SON OF GOD is not FATHER. When we think of Jesus as SON OF GOD, we cannot think of Him as FATHER. SON OF GOD is not FATHER. However, in this manner of thinking I showed above, JESUS is both FATHER and SON OF GOD. You continue to demand that the person of JESUS is strictly applicable ONLY to SON OF GOD. Nothing in the Bible says that, though. You had to erect a perceptual grid in your mind that re-interprets the use of FATHER aside SON, and interjects the thought of two persons, although the Bible never says they are "two persons". Your "two person" doctrine is merely an interpretation of a given picture.

It's like seeing a hypothetical picture of a green glob aside another green glob found on the planet Mars. Haha. And without any information other than your eyes, you demand that they are two distinct beings after seeing them move and even begin to talk. However, you do not know the nature of these green globs. How do you know that a single being of this species cannot exist as two distinct green globs? You do not know. You inadvertently base your reasoning on the fact that human beings have to be two persons in order to see one human body aside another separate human body. I used a similar picture before. I guess you simply cannot think outside of human terms, if you still do not see your error.

You are taking a Being called God and demanding that God be three persons when you read in the Bible of Father, Son and Holy Ghost doing the things they did in the texts. Since the nature of man demands that we interpret the picture of three human bodies, distinct from one another, as being three human persons, you demand God be three persons because of a similar picture using Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Or, since human persons can talk, you see Father and Son talk, although we know they're not totally human, and demand that they be two divine persons, because two human beings talking are definitely two persons. You have no qualification to demand these things! How can you compare God the Father and the Son of God to human persons? Simply because they talk to one another? Is that all the basis you have?

My entire overview of the whole trinity picture is that it is mistakenly overlooking the error it commits of demanding of God's nature what is demanded of man when God does things that men can do, such as speak, etc. The three in question (what you call PERSONS, and what I call MANIFESTATIONS OF ONE PERSON) communicate to each other. Solely on the basis that humans must be two persons in order to see such occur, you demand that God is more than one person.

Can you follow my reasoning, whether you agree or not? We already know that you and I, for example, are two distinct persons. We have that background knowledge. So when we see other human beings, we know they're not one person, but more than one. However, we have no background information in explicit terms that God is more than one person. You are blatantly destroying true understanding and common sense when you claim Father and Son are two persons because you read of the Father and Son doing things in relation to each other that, if humans did them, would demand that humans be two persons.

Colin, I truly believe this is an absolutely logical breakthrough that would change the mind of any trinitarian about their doctrine! Seriously!

At any rate, here is what we believe. The Father locationally indwelt the Son. The Father was actually located inside the Body of the Son. That is not figurative but actual. However, the Father has no physical body, so the Son is not actually indwelling the Father. That is figurative, and positional in the sense of belonging. See how the two indwellings are different? God is manifested in flesh. Pure deity is manifested in flesh. But the Son is not manifested in the Father in the same way. Surely, you agree!

In the same way is the believe in Christ! We are in Christ as Christ is in the Father. But we are not in Christ as the Father was in the Son. We are in Christ positionally in figure, and not in time and space. However, God is also in me actually and positionally in time and space. So the indwellings we see here are two different indwellings altogether. One is in time and space and the other is not. The other is speaking about unity of purpose, etc. I agree with you on that single point.

Anyway, Oneness teaches that the Father's very Spirit indwelt the physical body of the Son. That does not make the Son the Father. Not at all. The Son is a physical tabernacle, so to speak. That is what John 1:14 means by the term DWELT. Check the Greek.

So what do you mean this verse in no way supports oneness? It's precisely a verse from which our doctrine was defined!

You are wrong when you say, "In the same way the Father indwells the Son, the SON indwells the FATHER!" Absolutely wrong. John 1:14 says the Word made flesh DWELT among us. DWELT is TABERNACLED. That greek term is lost somewhat in the english term DWELT. The greek implies the spiritual indwelling the physical as God's Spirit indwelt the temple and tabernacle of old times. Son of God involves the physical. FATHER does not.


TOP THREE REASONS WHY I DENY TRINITY

(1) First and foremost I deny Trinity doctrine because Trinity doctrine demands that God be three persons soley on the basis of determining that the activities between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in relationship to one another, could only be understood as three persons if humans were involved in such things as three persons. I see the glaring error of trinity's failure of distinguishing Father from Son as two persons solely upon the evidence of Father communicating with, hearing, loving, etc., the Son (as we read of no communication or speech between Father and Holy Spirit or between Son and Holy Spirit) because of knowing that human beings can only do so in cases of having more than one person. In short, Trinitarians see Father and Son doing things that demands more than one person in the case of human beings doing them, and thereby demand that Father and Son be two persons. I will go so far as to say "in human terms of comparing these manifestations of God with humans, they are two persons." But they are not human beings, so we cannot use human terms. We cannot say that this is an actual and valid description of the reality of the picture, simply because the Father is not human, and the Son is human as well as deity.

(2) We only see Father and Son relating to one another after the Incarnation. And all alleged interaction said to be found in scriptures pointing to times before that are either scriptures that are actually prophetic and foretell the future period after incarnation (As Psalm 2:7), or are actually speaking in terms of literary language used by potentates as the royal "we", as in the case of Gen 1:26, or statements referring to impersonal objects in personified terms, as in Proverbs 8 regarding wisdom as a woman, where verse 22is often incorrectly used to speak of the son of God.

(3) I deny the thought of an ETERNAL SON OF GOD. "Son of God" is a title that is explicitly and incontrovertibly designated in Luke 1:35 to the child born in the incarnation solely due to the fact that a birthing brought Him about with the involvement of an actual Father (God) and an actual mother (Mary). I can stand aside Adam Clarke in his commentary on this very verse as he wrote:

ADAM CLARKE:

It is true, that to Jesus the Christ, as he appeared among men, every characteristic of the Divine nature is sometimes attributed, without appearing to make any distinction between the Divine and human natures; but is there any part of the Scriptures in which it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of God? Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: -

The enemies of Christ’s Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the deity of Christ; now, if his deity be taken away, the whole Gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could not purchase pardon for the offenses of mankind, nor give any right to, or possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the Scriptures. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has terminated in Socinianism, and that in Deism. From such heterodoxies, and their abetters, may God save his Church! Amen!