COLIN older remarks: Thanks for clarifying this for me. There is a very obvious difference in scripture as to the usage of Jehovah-Jireh and Father and Son. Nowhere does scriture show interaction between Jehovah -Jireh and Jehovah-Tsidkenu, as it does Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The OT names of God denote His character -- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exercise their wills in th epages of scripture (i.e., I Cor 12:11) - they are more than mere names/roles of God. Note the following scriptures - John 14:16, 26, John 10:15, Matthew 3:16,17, Hebrews 1:8, I Cor 2:10b, Heb 10:14, etc. In arguing your case that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct "persons", and in the same class of the OT names of God, you are bound to confound the clear meaning of the above texts.
MIKE: You yourself noted that the kind of interaction between your supposed persons is not found in the Old Testament, and used that to help indicate how that the New testament will reveal more of God's nature than did the Old.
COLIN'S RESPONSE: If you are referring to the above statement, I did not say that. I said there was no interaction between the Old Testament names of God. These are clearly generic names of God, while Father Son and Holy Spirit are distinct "Persons" who interact and exercise their Will]. You did this since trinity doctrine is based upon the premise that God was only revealed as Trinity in the New Testament.
Older remarks: That is not true at all. It is only more clearly revealed in the NT. While a believing Jew may not have arrived at the conclusion that God is a trinity by reading the OT, God's revelation was not complete at that point. Your argument that the only issue to be newly revealed in our salvation is false. First of all, you have yet to present a coherent, concrete biblical argument for why the Trinity cannot be fully revealed revelaed in the NT -- I don't need "chapter and verse"; I only want a clear argument; Beyond that, the way of salvation was revealed in the OT -- i.e. Isaiah 53; but it was veiled so the full blaze of glroy and understanding was brought forth under the new covenant. So it is with the Godhead.
MIKE: You did this since trinity doctrine is based upon the premise that God was only revealed as Trinity in the New Testament. So, if you believe there was no interaction between persons in the Old Testament,
COLIN: I never said that and I don't believe that . I said there was not interaction between the "Names of God" in the OT.
MIKE: ...then you have to admit that the three persons did not manifest themselves in interaction... and we can go further and say that there was no interaction at all between the persons in the Scriptural accounts anyway.
COLIN: As noted above, your conclusion is erroneous because your premise is false.
MIKE: What about this: We know that the greatest work of God was the work for our salvation. It was the most complex, as well as the greatest and most profound. What is more important in man's history than being brought back into fellowship with God in the holiest of His presence? Nothing.
COLIN: I understand what you are saying but you're missing the point. I see the thrust of your argument, but I need to address something here. For some reason, you believe passionately that there cannot be distinct persons in the Godhead. Although ther eis nothing in all of scripture that expressly forbids it, you hold this as a core belief. It is even well known that "one" in Deut. 6:4 can refer to a collective one. It seems that you then take taht core, passionate belief and apply it zealously to scripture. I want you to understand that there is nothing in me that inherently desires a God to be a Trinity. But I passionately want to know Christ and present Him as He present Himself in scripture. I feel as if you so passionately believe in your oneness that you really gloss over many statements in scripture. There is very clear interaction between eternal persons recorded in scripture. With whom did the Son share glory before the world was (John 17)? Just how does the Holy Spirit search the deep things of God, if He Himself is God and God is Spirit? With whom was God equal before the incarnation (Phil 2)? I encourage you to think long and hard about these statements. If oneness is so clear, as you say, then why does God make statements like these? In the end, we all stand or fall before God for our beliefs. I only exhort you to be open to something you are not terribly familiar with.
MIKE: So the manifestation, not person, of God in becoming a Son for our redemption, would be the greatest manifestation for man as far as we are concerned. And it would therefore also be the most complicated and unprecedented one. And since that incarnation necessitated that HUMANITY be taken upon God and added to His deity in the incarnation as Son of God, then interaction is simply necessary. Not because there is an eternal interaction between supposed multiple persons, but rather simply because manifestation of God as a man necessitates interaction. Had there not been that prayer from the Son to the Father, we could rightly say that God was not TRULY manifest in flesh nor incarnated. He could not identify with us to die as us on the cross if He as a man did not HAVE TO pray to deity. That is the only interaction you see. You see no interaction between Father and Holy Ghost like you do between Son and Holy Ghost and, Son and Father. You are not seeing interaction between eternal persons of the Godhead, but between HUMANITY AND DEITY. It was absolutely essential that the Son pray to the Father, for even the scriptures, let alone common sense, tells us that FLESH MUST PRAY TO DEITY.
Psalm 65:2 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.
Verse 2 includes GOD'S MANIFESTATION IN FLESH!
COLIN: You pin me down for explicit verses in scripture to prove the trinity, yet often employ deductive reasoning to seek your point.
You are, in my opinion, making an error common to oneness teaches. While the scripture makes clear distinction between the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, they are indeed God. Therefore, while certain persons of the Godhead have assumed particular roles in our redemption, often these same specific roles/titles are attributed generally to God or even to others in the Godhead. This in no way disproves the trinity or proves that the name Jesus is not limited to the Son. If Jesus is not limited to Father or Son, how then can this name be used to distinguish between the two??
MIKE: I agree there is clear distinction between the three. But that is not a distinction of persons. Is personhood the only distinction possible? Not at all.
COLIN: OF COURSE IT IS! HOW CAN AN OFFICE LOVE AN OFFICE? HOW CAN AN OFFICE SEARCH THE DEEP THINGS OF ANOTHER OFFICE? HOW CAN AN OFFICE BE EQUAL WITH GOD HIMSELF? HOW CAN AN OFFICE SEND ANOTHER OFFICE INTO THE WORLD? HOW CAN A MERE OFFICE BE ADDRESSED BY GOD HIMSELF AS GOD? MIKE, I COULD GO ON AND ON. ALL THESE ACTIONS REFLECT PERSONALITY, NOT ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BETWEEN MERE OFFICES OR SO-CALLED MANIFESTATIONS! OH, HOW THE ONENESS TEACHINGS BELITTLE JESUS CHRIST AND ROB HIM OF THIS TRUE GLORY...BOTH AFTER AND BEFORE THE INCARNATION! JESUS CHRIST IS NOT THE FATHER, AS HE IS MANIFESTLY DISTINGUISHED FROM HIM AD NAUSEA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. JESUS CHRIST - THE SON - PARTICIPATED IN CREATION AND IS EQUAL WITH GOD. THESE ARE PLAIN STATEMENTS FROM BEGINNING TO END IN THE NT.
MIKE: There is Distinction of manifestation and role or office. And this DOES destroy the trinity doctrine when distinct roles are given to your other persons.
COLIN: How?
COLIN: IN NOW WAY! IT IS CLEAR FROM SCRIPTURE THAT THE SON IS OF THE SAME ESSENCE AS GOD THE FATHER, HEB 1:3. WHILE THE DISTINCT PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD HAVE ASSUMED DISTINCT ROLES IN OUR REDEMPTION, THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. A HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE BOTH THE SAME ESSENCE - HUMANS - BUT THE ASSUME DIFFERENT ROLES IN THE HOME. THIS ILLUSTRATION DOESN'T' COMPLETELY CARRY THROUGH. I CAN NURTURE MY CHILDREN, EVEN THOUGH MY WIFE IS BY FAR KNOWN AS NURTURER.
MIKE: You are missing the point I made.
COLIN: SORRY, BUT YOU MISSED MY POINT. ONE OF THE STRONGEST EVIDENCES OF THE TRINITY IS HOW THE FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE CONSTRUED AS PROPER NOUNS OR NAMES. YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD WATER.
MIKE: If your verses prove that Jesus is not the name of the Father, then they also by the same token prove that Jesus is not God.
What about this verse? Not to sound rude, but does Jesus have a grandfather according to this?
1Thessalonians 3:11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.
COLIN: FROM ONE PASTOR TO ANOTHER, YOUR HANDLING OF GOD'S WORD HERE IS NOT HONORING. IT IS CLEAR - ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE LITERAL GREEK (WHICH I DID) - THAT THE TWO SUBJECTS ARE "GOD OUR FATHER" AND OUR "LORD JESUS CHRIST". AGAIN, MIKE, THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT. YOU ARE THROWING RED HERRINGS WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. RIGHT TO YOUR SCRIPTURE - CLEARLY TWO PERSONAL ACTIONS ARE TAKING PLACE FROM GOD THE FATHER AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. AND AREN'T YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT THE TWO ARE ONE AND THE SAME?! YOUR THEOLOGY MAKES CLEAR STATEMENTS VERY CONFUSING. YOU SAY JESUS IS THE NEW NAME FOR THE FATHER, YET THEY ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM BEGINNING TO END OF THE NT. AND IF FATHER IS JUST A ROLE AND NOT A PROPER NAME, WHY IS HE SAID TO "DIRECT OUR WAY TO YOU" ALONG WITH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (WHICH IS A PROPER NOUN)? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, MIKE - THINK THROUGH WHAT I'M SAYING.
MIKE: Your reasoning demands that we think of the above verse as there being one person called God, another called Father and another called Jesus. Add that to the Holy Ghost and you have four persons!
MIKE: The name Jesus is used to distinguish the two in just the same way that GOD is used to distinguish the Father from Son. How come you cannot see that? Over and over again there is contrast between GOD AND JESUS. But that does not mean that Jesus is not God.
COLIN: MIKE, I AM HONESTLY AMAZED THAT YOU CONTINUE TO USE THIS ARGUMENT. LET ME KNOW IF WHAT I'M SAYING IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU. YOU CANNOT BACK YOUR CASE USING THIS ARGUMENT.
OLDER REMARKS: EXCEPT THAT IN THESE CASES THE WORD "GOD" IS NOT USED TO ESTABLISH DEITY, BUT RATHER USED AS A PROPER NAME TO DISTINGUISH HIM FROM THE SON. YOU ARE CONFUSING THE TWO; YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. THE SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR IN ESTABLISHING THE DEITY OF THE SON OF GOD (AS GOD THE FATHER AFFIRMS IN HEBREWS 1:8), THAT IS BEYOND DEBATE. YOU OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT IN THIS VERSE THE SON IS REFERRED TO AS "LORD" - NO OTHER HUMAN BEING EVER HAD THAT TITLE, WITH ALL IT REPRESENTS. I HONESTLY CANNOT THINK SCRIPTURE COULD BE MORE CLEAR THAN IT IS HERE - THE FATHER IS NOT JESUS THE SON; HE IS DISTINCT.
MIKE: GOD is not a proper name. It is rather a position of existence.
COLIN: IT CAN BE BOTH. AND GOD CERTAINLY IS A PROPER NAME, THAT'S HOW WE ADDRESS HIM!
MIKE: That is the reason other adherents to various religions entitle their deity "God", also. And if you refer to the Hebrew Name Elohim, then that falls into the same category as Adonai and Jehovah. And JESUS incorporates that name into itself as JEHOVAH-SALVATION. JESUS is, any way you look at it, higher than any other name in existence.
COLIN: OTHER THAN GOD, THAT IS. BECAUSE JESUS IS HIMSELF GOD, IT IS NOT ILLOGICAL FOR THE STATEMENT TO BE MADE IN PHIL 2. JESUS' NAME IS NOT ABOVE THE FATHER'S NAME - IT WAS THE FATHER WHO BESTOWED SUCH HONOR ON HIM WHEN HE RETURNED TO HEAVEN AFTER ACCOMPLISHING OUR REDEMPTION.
MIKE: Since the SON is also God then the argument of distinction from the Son is also incorrect. The actual distinction is between HUMANITY AND DEITY. At time s the SON is referred to as DEITY, so that tells us that SONSHIP is unique. The SON is both deity and humanity, but never deity without humanity.
COLIN: YES IT IS; JOHN 17:5 AND PHIL 2 - THIS IS ALL PRE-INCARNATION.
MIKE: However, GOD or FATHER In that context of distinction is never including the aspect of humanity at all.
MIKE: The FATHER is not the SON. That is the only distinction. I believe you are missing the distinction between humanity and deity, and are assuming the incorrect assumption that it is two eternal persons that are distinguished. Trinity doctrine ever forgets the human and divine distinction, necessitating interaction and distinguishing roles.
COLIN: MIKE, WE DO NOT FORGET THE HUMAN/DIVINE DISTINCTION; WE SIMPLY CORRECTLY PLACE IT ON THE PERSON OF THE SON. IF THE FATHER SENT THE SON INTO THE WORLD, THAN THE SON EXISTED BEFORE HE WAS INCARNATED. IF HE SHARED GLORY WITH THE FATHER BEFORE THE WORLD WAS, OBVIOUSLY HE EXISTED BEFORE HIS INCARNATION. THE SON IS CLEARLY DIVINE, FOR EVEN GOD THE FATHER ATTESTS TO THIS - HEB 1. YET THE SON TOOK ON HUMAN FLESH (PHIL 2, JOHN 1:14), AND THAT IS WHERE THE HUMAN/DIVINE DISTINCTION LAYS.
MIKE: (From the previous correspondence)
These terms are used because our Saviour Jesus (JEHOVAH-SALVATION) is inherently human as well as divine. There is no Son without humanity. But that is not sao with Father. There is no inherent sonship when thinking of the Father.
COLIN FORMER REMARKS: THE NAME "GOD" IS USED AS WELL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GOD THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT...DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT GOD? SEE II COR 13:14.
MIKE: It is again distinction of office, not of divine persons. That is the reason that there is no such interaction in the Old Testament. Son did not exist then! Not until God incarnated in flesh was there an interaction necessary. And it was not that of persons, but humanity and deity interacting.
Many points of interaction were done out of need for humanity to be distinguished from deity.
COLIN: WE AGREE. BUT IT WAS THE DUAL DIVINE/HUMAN NATURE OF THE THE SON, NOT THE SON/FATHER. YOU CONTINUE TO BRUSH ASIDE THE INTERACTION THAT WAS PRE-INCARNATION.
MIKE: John 11:41 Then they took away the stone [from the place] where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, ...
COLIN: MIKE - WHY WOULD JESUS LIFT UP HIS EYES IF THE DEITY HE WAS PRAYING TO RESIDED WITHIN?
MIKE: ...and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. John 11:42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
Jesus did not have to pray out loud as He did. But for our benefit He did. There was the Father literally dwelling in that Flesh. And there was constant communion inwardly between the humanity and deity. But there was this interaction visibly made know for the sake of the others watching, so as to understand what was happening. Otherwise they would have thought they could never see such miracles occur at their own prayers, for they would think Jesus' literal flesh was deity and not at all made like their own.
But Jesus flesh originated from divine incarnation, but was not deity itself. God was manifest IN flesh, not INTO flesh.
COLIN: THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT HERE. BUT THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT GOD THE SON TOOK ON FLESH, NOT THE FATHER. GOD THE FATHER DID NOT SPECIFICALLY RESIDE IN JESUS' BODY, ANY MORE THAN HE DOES OURS IN THE SENSE THAT HE IS OMNIPRESENT. AND IF YOU OBJECT TO ME USING THE TERM "GOD THE SON" BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN SCRIPTURE, REMEMBER THAT YOU USE THE TERM "INCARNATION" FREELY, AS WELL AS "MANIFESTATION" OR "OFFICE". NONE ARE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, BUT WE USE THEM TO ARTICULATE WHAT WE FIND THEREIN.
MIKE: Anyway, my point is that the interaction we read about is necessarily accomplished since HUMANITY AND DEITY are the true distinctives, not eternal persons. Your doctrine is dangerous since it negates that human and divine distinction. So much so, that you doctrine teaches that GOD DIED on the cross,...
COLIN: IN SO MUCH THAT THE DIVINE/HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS THE SON OF GOD ALMOST INSEPARABLE, IT IS SAID THAT THEY CRUCIFIED THE "LORD OF GLORY". IS THIS A REFERENCE TO THE PLAIN HUMANITY OF THE SON?
MIKE: ...and that Mary is the MOTHER OF GOD.
COLIN: MIKE, THIS IS A CATHOLIC INVENTION, DON'T PUT THAT ON ME. AND IT COULD BE JUST AS EASILY CONCOCTED BY A ONENESS CATHOLIC AS IT COULD A TRINITARIAN CATHOLIC. THE DOCTRINE OF THREE DISTINCT PERSONS IN NO WAY NECESSITATES AN ETERNAL MOTHER. YOU ARE ONLY DISPLAYING YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE TRUE MEANING AN NATURE OF THE SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST
COLIN: GOD THE SON IS THE SON OF THE FATHER. THE TERM GOD THE SON STEMS FROM THE FACT THAT GOD THE FATHER CALLS THE SON GOD IN HEB 1. NOTHING CONFUSING OR TRICKY HERE, MIKE. I KNOW YOU LIKE PLAIN, EXPLICIT STATEMENTS, BUT THIS IS A RATHER SIMPLE DEDUCTION.
MIKE: (From the previous correspondence)
... The same is in 2 John 1:3. Jesus is used to distinguish Father from Son, but in no way implies that the Father is not named Jesus also.
COLIN: IT NOT ONLY IMPLIES, BUT CLEARLY STATES, THAT THE FATHER IS NOT JESUS...OTHERWISE JOHN WOULD ONLY HAVE SAID "WITH THE FATHER AND HIS SON"...HE WOULDN'T HAVE SAID "HIS SON JESUS" IF JESUS IS THE FATHER. GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION, AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS QUITE CONFUSING. IF I SAY X AND Y ARE BOTH Z, I WOULD NEVER USE Z TO DISTINGUISH X FROM Y.
MIKE: John said no such explicit statement at all, Colin. This no more violates oneness doctrine than the three manifestations simultaneously appearing to John the Baptist during Jesus' baptism. Taking your reasoning you must say that the Holy Ghost is not God either, since the distinction is made between GOD and HOLY GHOST as follows:
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
COLIN: MIKE, THIS VERSE ONLY PROVES THAT THE TERM "GOD" IS USED AS A PROPER NAME. HE IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LORD JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. I WILL GENTLY PRESS THE SUBJECT AGAIN - IN II JOHN 1:3, JESUS IS IDENTIFIED AS THE SON, IN CONTRAST TO THE FATHER. IT'S REALLY QUITE PLAIN. THE FATHER IS NOT JESUS, OR JOHN WOULDN'T HAVE USED THE NAME JESUS TO DISTINGUISH HIM FROM THE SON!]
MIKE: I am sorry, but you cannot get anywhere using the examples that you are using to try to prove that Jesus is not the Father. The same verses, using that logic, can be said to prove that the Holy Ghost and Jesus are not God. Explicit means outright statements reading "JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER," and you have none!
COLIN: MIKE, WE ALL STAND OR FALL BEFORE GOD HIMSELF. IN FISHING FOR YOUR "OUTRIGHT" STATEMENTS, YOU ARE MISSING THE WRITING ON THE WALL. I DON'T THINK THE HOLY GHOST COULD BE ANY CLEARER THAN HE IS IN THESE PASSAGES. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THESE SCRIPTURES.
MIKE: Matthew 28:19 says there is one common NAME to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It is invoked at water baptism. And we find that name in Acts where they did invoke a name to be only JESUS. So the Father's name must be Jesus by that account also. Acts 22:16 uses the greek term INVOKE... "calling on".
COLIN PREVIOUS REMARKS: MATTHEW 28:19 DOES NOT SAY THAT...RATHER, THAT IS YOUR INFERENCE. I KNOW THIS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT DEBATE, BUT CONNECTING ACTS 2:38 TO MATTHEW 28:19 DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO WHO JESUS IS.
MIKE PREVIOUS REMARKS: It most certainly does!!! There is the NAME noted in both instances of Acts references and Matthew 28:19. And personal name is the issue. The Father is not a name ...
COLIN: YOU SAY THIS AND YET POINT TO ISAIAH 9:6 WHERE IT IS CLEARLY DEFINED AS A NAME. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, MIKE
MIKE: ...any more than GOD is a name. The only NAME ever used in water baptism was JESUS. The rest of the terms are TITLES. It most clearly shows that the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is JESUS.
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
The entire family is named JESUS.
COLIN: I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE...WHAT FAMILY? GOD HIMSELF? THE CHURCH? HUMANITY? I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, HERE.
MIKE: The FAMILY is the entire picture of Father , MOTHER and CHILDREN. Contextually speaking, the Father is the single person of DEITY, ands the mother is the church, and the children are the saints.
This element of a commonality between the name of the Father and the Son is referred to as follows:
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Is the Son's name JESUS greater than the Father's own name? Of course not. And since JESUS means Jehovah-salvation, and Jesus is God, then we know that Jehovah's name is, by default, JESUS.
COLIN: IT AMAZES ME THAT YOU ADMONISH ME FOR DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AND YET DO THE SAME YOURSELF. NOWHERE IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE DOES IT EXPLICITLY SAY THAT GOD'S NAME IS JESUS. THAT IS YOUR INFERENCE. RATHER, AS YOU NOTED ABOVE, IT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE TERM GOD (II COR 13:4)
MIKE:
There is only one name that Jesus manifested to Israel.John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
That is not only speaking of AUTHORITY as some claim, but the actual personal name JESUS, for you cannot separate the personal name from the authority.
Again in summary, your reference in Hebrews 7 distinguishes GOD from JESUS,
MIKE:
...but yet we also know Jesus is God. And we also know Jesus is called our father in Revelation 21 and Isaiah 6.
COLIN: JESUS IS NOT CALLED "OUR FATHER" ANYWHERE - YOU INSERTED THE WORD "OUR".
MIKE: Its only common sense insertion.
Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Is not Jesus our Father in the above context?
COLIN: MIKE, YOU'RE MAKING AN ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION. JESUS, THE SON, IS SPECIFICALLY SAID TO BE THE FATHER OF BELIEVERS. I AGREE WITH THAT. WE ARE AT TIMES CALLED HIS CHILDREN. BUT THIS RELATIONSHIP IS NOT EXTENDED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION NOR IS HE EVER SIMPLY REFERRED TO AS FATHER. GOD THE FATHER, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS REFERRED TO AS FATHER REGARDLESS OF THE CONTEXT AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ON NOT PEOPLE BOW THEIR KNEE TO HIM.
MIKE: And if He is everlasting Father in Isaiah 9, then is he not our father? I am not referring to a title "our Father". I am referring to Him being Father and that is spoken in relation to us, making him "our" Father.
COLIN: AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, JESUS IS CALLED ETERNAL FATHER, OR "FATHER OF ETERNITY"...REFERRING TO HIS ROLE IN CREATION, NOT A PERSONAL NAME. NOWHERE IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE IS JESUS REFERRED TO AS FATHER OR ADDRESSED "FATHER". RATHER, THE JEWS UNDERSTOOD HIM TO BE MAKING HIMSELF GOD BY CLAIMING HE WAS HIS FATHER (JOHN 10).
MIKE: I never said it was a personal name. Turning a title into a personal name is the entire argument that I am speaking against. It is His relationship to us.
COLIN: AGAIN, GOD THE FATHER IS GOD THE FATHER REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT. JESUS IS ONLY REFERRED TO AS FATHER, AS YOU POINTED OUT, IN RELATION TO THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN
MIKE: The verse in Isaiah 9 is repeatedly showing BOTH THE DIVINE and the HUMAN elements of the sonship.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child [HUMANITY] is born, unto us a son [HUMANITY] is given:
COLIN: NO! A CHILD IS BORN REFERS TO JESUS' HUMANITY, A SON GIVEN REFERS TO HIS DEITY. HE, THE SON, WAS SENT FROM THE FATHER'S SIDE. THIS IS A STATEMENT OF THE DUAL NATURE OF THE SON, NOT THE FATHER/SON RELATIONSHIP. WHEN JESUS WAS BORN, A PHYSICAL CHILD WAS BORN, YET THE ETERNAL SON WAS GIVEN FROM THE FATHER'S SIDE
MIKE: ...and the government shall be upon his shoulder : and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God [DEITY], The everlasting Father [DEITY], The Prince of Peace [HUMANITY].
Again you are missing the all-important dual nature of Christ as deity and humanity. You believe in t he dual nature, but do not apply it to pertinent scriptures, thus confusing the thought of God's eternal nature. If God is eternally three persons, then there is an eternal HUMAN, because the only distinction between Father and Son is deity versus deity and humanity together.
COLIN: AGAIN, NOT TRUE. YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURE TO BACK THIS UP, THIS IS THE PRODUCT OF YOUR THEOLOGY. HEB 1:3 MAKES THIS VERY CLEAR
MIKE:(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
But we are never told that Son and Father are "two persons."
COLIN: (FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE) YES WE ARE...IF OUR FELLOWSHIP IS WITH THE FATHER *AND* THE SON, THAN CLEARLY THEY ARE TWO "PERSONS"...THE FATHER ADDRESS THE SON AS GOD IN HEBREWS 1:8...CLEARLY THEY ARE SEPARATE AND BOTH DEITY.
MIKE: Not clearly at all. That is assumed. It is presumed. Yes there is a separateness of Son and Father. But who said it was of persons? That is as silly as saying that the separation of one kind of tree from another is that of persons, simply because there is a distinction. Its not that simple. Nothing explicitly states that the two are "persons". Nothing... let alone "eternal" persons.
COLIN: MIKE, HOW IS THIS ASSUMED, AND HOW IS THIS SILLY? I DO NOT FELLOWSHIP WITH THE HUMANITY OF JESUS, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS? CLEARLY OUR FELLOWSHIP TODAY IS WITH DEITY ONLY, AS JESUS' PHYSICAL BODY IS IN HEAVEN. THEREFORE, WHEN HE SAYS OUR FELLOWSHIP IS WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON, THAN BOTH ARE DIVINE. HOW ELSE CAN YOU READ IT? WHY DID YOU THROW IN THE COMMENT ABOUT TREES? WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TREES?
MIKE: In the oneness doctrine the perspective that humanity had to necessarily interact with deity makes it of necessity that there be a distinction and an interaction.
COLIN: MIKE, IF HEBREWS 1:3 DOES NOT CONVINCE YOU THAT THE FATHER AND SON ARE TWO DISTINCT ETERNAL PERSONS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL. THEY ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED, AND BOTH ARE DEFINED AS "GOD". YOU EVEN HAVE THE WORD "PERSON"
MIKE: So we find that the Bible does distinguish Father from Son at times using titles and names that are common to both. It is the same with the NAME Jesus in the instances you quote.
COLIN: MIKE, WE NEVER SEE THAT. THAT IS YOUR BIASED APPROACH TO THE WORD OF GOD. THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT IT TO SAY, SO YOUR THEOLOGY STAYS INTACT. IF IT MEANS WHAT IT PLAINLY SAYS, ONENESS TEACHING IS UNDERMINED. MIKE, VERY HUMBLY, ARE YOU OPEN TO BEING WRONG IN THIS DEBATE? ALTHOUGH I AM ALSO AN ORDAINED MINISTER IN A TRINITARIAN CHURCH, IF I FEEL YOU PRESENT A STRONG ENOUGH CASE, I'LL LEAVE MY CHURCH AND ABANDON ALL THAT I'VE EVER KNOWN. I WANT TO TRULY KNOW HIM ABOVE ALL ELSE. I TRUST YOU ARE OPEN TO BEING SHOWN YOUR ERROR, IF THAT INDEED IS THE CASE.
COLIN: Clearly there is a distinction. Please exegete vs. 25 from your perspective.
MIKE: Of course there is a distinction. That is the entire basis of the oneness doctrine. You must be unaware of the Oneness position for you ta assert that we believe there is no distinction between Father and Son. That is not the question we are posing to each other. The true question is one of the nature of the distinction.
COLIN: (FROM FORMER CONVERSATION) ARE YOU THEN SAYING THAT JESUS' HUMANITY IS INTERCEDING ON OUR BEHALF TO HIS DEITY?
MIKE: Yes! Why? Because, as High Priest during Old Testament times, the High Priest who interceded so weakly in that covenant represented the people. We have no representative for us in the most holy place without God having incarnated as Son of God, involving true-blue humanity, one of us so to speak, KINSMAN redeemer, to stand before deity AS US. You miss the entire ministry of High Priesthood if you cannot see that we required one like us who could represent us before God.
COLIN: WE ARE IN AGREEMENT CONCERNING YOUR LAST STATEMENT. THE ONLY DEVIANCE BEING THE NATURE OF THE SON OF GOD. YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT THE SON (HUMANITY - NAMED JESUS) INTERCEDES WITH THE FATHER (DEITY - ALSO NAMED JESUS). THIS LEAVES OUT THE HOLY SPIRIT, NOT DEFINING WHO HE IS OR WHAT SO-CALLED OFFICE OF GOD HE IS. I BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURE PRESENTS THE SON TO BE JESUS (IS. 9:6 & MATTHEW 1:21), WHO IS GOD HIMSELF (HEB 1:8, JOHN 1:1-3), WHO TOOK ON THE FORM OF A MAN (HEB 2:14, PHIL. 2:5), DIED FOR US AND SERVES AS OUR GREAT HIGH PRIEST, MINISTERING ON OUR BEHALF TO THE GOD FATHER. THE SON, WHO IS GOD/MAN, REPRESENTS US BEFORE GOD THE FATHER, WHO IS SPIRIT (ONLY THE SON WAS INCARNATED).
COLIN: IT SEEMS QUITE CLEAR THAT JESUS (THE SON OF GOD) IS BEING DISTINGUISHED FROM THE FATHER BY THE USE OF THE NAME "JESUS" - ELSE YOU DIMINISH THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT.
MIKE: No. The distinction using the name Jesus is that of redemption provided by way of sacrifice and representative as High Priest through incarnation, necessitating the major distinction of HUMANITY, and not persons.
COLIN: WHAT SCRIPTURE TO YOU HAVE TO BACK THIS UP?
MIKE: JESUS means JEHOVAH-SALVATION. That NAME fulfills this prophecy.
Isaiah 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.
Immanuel literally means: GOD WITH US, as Matthew provides. God shows the aspect of Deity. WITH US shows the aspect of incarnation involving humanity. Why did He incarnate? So redemption would be possible. Without a KINSMAN, there could be no redemption. (You must study RUTH in order to understand Levirate law demanding a KINSMAN in acts of redemption.)
COLIN: THANKS, MIKE, I'M AWARE OF THE MESSAGE OF RUTH.
MIKE: An angel cannot be high priest since an angel cannot represent us as being ONE OF US. That is the reason we read about the high priest in the first few verses of Hebrews 5 in the manner it is written.
So He is WITH US for the purpose of SALVATION. And so JESUS literally fulfills the name EMMANUEL and also covenantally in purpose fulfills that name.
JEHOVAH-SALVATION=GOD WITH US (EMMANUEL)
JEHOVAH=GOD SALVATION=WITH US (for the purpose of salvation).
So it is nothing to do with persons distinguished, but to be more scripturally and contextually correct, it is a distinction of ROLE OF SONSHIP FOR SALVATION OF MANKIND as opposed to PURE DEITY that is being stressed. But since it involves a personal name JESUS, and JESUS involves the element JEHOVAH, then we know it is simply God's greatest name of all names! And the SON cannot have a name greater than the Father!!
COLIN: MIKE, I AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THAT THAT IS NOT REALLY THE ISSUE. JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER, HE'S THE SON. THE SON IS GOD WHO WAS SENT BY THE FATHER INTO THE WORLD; HE TOOK ON A BODY. JESUS IS EMMANUEL BECAUSE AS GOD, HE HAS DWELT AMONG US. JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER (DEITY) INDWELLING THE SON (HUMANITY). JESUS IS GOD THE SON SENT BY GOD THE FATHER TO PUT ON A BODY. JESUS, WHO WAS "WITH GOD AND WAS GOD", HAS EXPLAINED THE FATHER (JOHN 1:1-3,18).
COLIN: JESUS' OBLATION AND INTERCESSION ARE INTRINSICALLY INTERTWINED - AS PART OF HIS MEDIATORIAL ROLE - THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED.
MIKE: And the fact remains that being mediator demands that he be genuine humanity. Otherwise He cannot act as mediator. You are missing the all-important issue of our kinship to Him due to His humanity, that he might act as mediator. I repeat, you cannot have this kind of mediatorial role without the all-important issue of humanity. That is the distinction that is stressed. Not personhood.
Since God can certainly be one person and incarnate Himself without there being a second or third person to accomplish this (by very definition of omnipotent deity), then this does not demand nor prove multiple persons in the Godhead.
MIKE: Your mother of errors is in my opinion limiting the characteristics of a divine person to those of human persons. Since humans cannot interact and still be on a single person, you assume neither can God. But you forget that to arrive at such a conclusion demands that you forget that deity is intrinsically different in ability than humanity.
COLIN: MIKE, IF THIS IS MY MOTHER OF ERRORS, YOUR ARGUMENT IS VERY, VERY WEAK. I REALIZE THAT GODS WAY'S ARE NOT OUR WAYS. BUT GOD HAS REVEALED HIMSELF IN SCRIPTURE IN A QUITE FORTHRIGHT MANNER. AS I SAID BEFORE, I BELIEVE IN THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD AS MUCH AS YOU DO. I DON'T PREACH THE TRINITY BECAUSE I BELIEVE GOD IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED AND CANNOT MANIFEST HIMSELF IN VARIOUS WAYS AT THE SAME TIME. BUT TOO MANY DOCTRINAL PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE STATE THE VERY THINGS YOU DENY. I PREACH THE TRINITY BECAUSE I WANT TO BE FAITHFUL TO WHAT I SEE IN THE WORD OF GOD. IT IS MOST SAD TO ME TO SEE ONENESS TEACHERS CONSISTENTLY LOOK AT TRINITARIAN PASSAGES AND SAY "THIS VERSE DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS. WHAT IS REALLY SAYS IS..." I WAS JUST SKIMMING THROUGH BERNARD'S BOOK, "THE ONENESS VIEW OF JESUS CHRIST". INCIDENTALLY, THIS BOOK IS TO ONENESS WHAT THE COUNSILS WERE TO TRINITARIANS. BOTH SIMPLY WANT TO DECLARE AND DEFEND THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF GOD, IN LIGHT OF MANY WHO DO NOT BELIEVE ACCORDINGLY. ANYWAY, HE DEVOTED AN ENTIRE SECTION TO "EXPLAINING AWAY" TRINITARIAN PASSAGES. BUT I DIGRESS...MIKE, WE ARE NOT DEGRADING THE AWESOMENESS OF GOD. WE ARE SIMPLY PRESENTING WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES. MIKE, MY ADORATION AND AWE OF GOD INCREASES - NOT DECREASES - WHEN I BEHOLD THE ETERNALLY TRIUNE GOD, WHO IS ONE (DUET 6:4).
MIKE: Its funny really, ...no offence. You look at the baptism of Jesus and see three manifestations. And then you look at yourself and realize that you cannot fall from the air as well as speak from the clouds, while you are standing in water since you are only one person. So you reason that God cannot do that either and still be one person. So there must be at least three persons in the Godhead.
COLIN: I actually don't base my belief of the Trinity on Jesus' baptism. I would say it backs up the truth of the Trinity, but I don't use it (and never have) to establish the Trinity. Don't assume arguments from other Trinitarians :-) I agree with you that the baptism doesn't necessarily prove the Trinity in itself. But I do think it is a stretch to hold to the interpretation you do.
MIKE: The fact is that nobody believe din three persons for a few hundred years. And before that, the reasoners of the church felt he was only two persons, Father and Son. The idea of Holy Ghost being a third person was unheard of until well after that.
COLIN: MIKE, AT THIS POINT I WILL ONLY SAY THAT YOU AND I HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIEW OF HISTORY. I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY NOW, THOUGH
MIKE: But even the two person theory is out of whack.
(I only mention this (and will not stress this in our talks) because I ask how can trinity be explained and substantiated without resorting to history, because your doctrine is well-known to have been derived at after a few centuries, for there was no explicit statements anywhere in any biblical writings about three persons until that time. And the trinitarian "fathers" Simply resorted to the likes of Plato to explain the distinction between Father and Son using the term LOGOS in John 1:1. That is your history!)
COLIN: I'll let this comment go, as we should be presenting our case from Scripture alone. History is in the eye of the beholder - everyone has their own view of history which is usually partial to their own theological bent. Suffice it to say for here that I question your presentation of history. I hold the church fathers in much higher regard than you apparently do. I believe your above comments are completely false and obviously you have studied under biased teaching. I cannot help but note that even though the weight of history weighs heavily on my side, I have not felt the need to bring it up. This exchange must be based on Scripture and arguments found therein.
COLIN: See also Hebrews 4:14, where Jesus is the Son of God (NOT the Father) who intercedes TO the Father on our behalf. Note as well I John 1:7, 2:1 - the Son is distinguished from the Father and the Son is called Jesus, NOT the Father.
MIKE: Once again the same rule applies with these references as it did in 2 John 1:3. God is distinguished from Jesus, yet we know Jesus is still God.
COLIN: MIKE, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE YOU KEEP SAYING THIS. JESUS' RELATIONSHIP TO THE FATHER IS ARTICULATED IN JOHN 1:1-3. GOD IS DISTINGUISHED FROM JESUS BECAUSE JESUS WAS WITH GOD, AND WAS GOD. YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT SUPPORT YOUR VIEW, NOR DOES IT ANSWER MY QUESTION.
COLIN: I THINK YOU'RE MISSING MY POINT IN ALL OF THIS. WE BOTH AGREE THAT JESUS IS GOD AND MAN. THE FATHER SENT HIM FROM HIS SIDE INTO THE WORLD TO TAKE ON HUMANITY.
MIKE: That last statement is an assumption. We do not read the Son existed in Heaven before the incarnation. All we read about are prophecies foretelling that work of incarnation and speaking as though it already existed. That is God's foreknowledge in effect.
COLIN: I'VE LISTED VERSES TOO MANY TIMES TO LIST THEM ALL AGAIN; I'LL ONLY POINT TO JOHN 1. YOUR STATEMENT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS SIMPLY YOUR INCORRECT WAY OF DISCARDING ALL THE VERSES THAT DENY YOUR STATEMENT. VERY CONVENIENT, I'D SAY!
COLIN: SO, THERE ARE CLEARLY INSTANCES WHERE HIS HUMANITY AND/OR DEITY ARE BEING ADDRESSED.
MIKE: Certainly.
COLIN: BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DIVINE JESUS IS THE FATHER. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THIS: GOD IS SPIRIT. WITHIN THE ETERNAL GOD THERE EXISTS THREE DISTINCT PERSONS, YET THERE IS ONE GOD.
MIKE: But that is not explicitly taught ANYWHERE in the Bible. Please see my point.
COLIN: BECAUSE IT IS NOT TAUGHT IN A SINGULAR CHAPTER AND VERSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S NOT TRUE. YOU SEEM TO VACILLATE BETWEEN DEMANDING THINGS BE TAUGHT EXPLICITLY AND THEN TURNING AROUND AND USING DEDUCTIVE REASONING YOURSELF. YOU NEED TO BE MORE CONSISTENT. EITHER REASONING FROM SCRIPTURE IS ACCEPTABLE OR IT'S NOT.
COLIN: THE SON WAS SENT BY THE FATHER TO TAKE ON A BODY FOR OUR REDEMPTION. THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT EXIST AS SPIRIT ONLY, BUT THE SON HAS CHOSEN TO BE ETERNALLY CLOTHED IN HUMANITY.
MIKE: I hope you are misusing terms here, because if you are not then we really have a chasm between us. "Eternally" speaks of no beginning as well as no end. Are you saying that in all eternity past that the Son was an eternal human? Are you saying that He was human before the incarnation? Or are you saying He is forevermore human since the incarnation? If he is only human from the incarnation onward, than that is not eternal.
COLIN: I see your point - I was indeed saying that He has chosen to be clothed in humanity forevermore. I am not saying that He is human - that would imply He is not divine. I am saying that He, being God, did not grasp after being equal with God but chose to take the form of a man (Phil 2:6,7 & Heb 2:14). He never stopped being God when He took on a body.
MIKE: This brings up another issue I raised in my last correspondence. An eternal Son demands there be an eternal mother, or He really is not a Son at all. He is only like a Son in some ways.
COLIN: Mike, in physical earthly relationships, yes. But you are misunderstanding the Sonship of Jesus. Your logic with the baptism applies to yourself here... Its funny really, ...no offence. You look at the baptism of Jesus and see three manifestations. ANd then you look at yourself and realize that you cannot fall from the air as well as speak from the clouds, while you are standing in water since you are only one person. So you reason that God cannot do that either and still be one person. So there must be at least three persons in the Godhead. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of. God can do anything He wants! Don't confuse the divine with the mortal! Are you implying that Mary is Jesus' mother in the same sense God the Father is Jesus' Father? Don't confine God to our limitations.
COLIN: BUT HE NEVER STOPPED BEING GOD. SO OF COURSE JESUS, THE SON, IS BOTH GOD AND MAN. BUT WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE DEITY OF JESUS, IT IS NOT REFERRING TO THE FATHER, IT IS HIS OWN DEITY.
MIKE: I disagree. The deity of Jesus is the Father that was IN the flesh.
COLIN: WHERE DO YOU FIND THIS IN SCRIPTURE? I READ THAT THE WORD, WHO WAS WITH GOD, BECAME FLESH.
MIKE: The Son was tempted, but yet we know that God cannot be tempted.
COLIN: OBVIOUSLY IT WAS HIS HUMANITY THAT WAS TEMPTED
COLIN: MIKE, SOMETIMES YOU GROSSLY MISREPRESENT THE TRINITY. WHEN HAVE I EVER SAID THAT GOD DIED? I NEVER SAID THAT. WHEN JESUS DIED, HIS SPIRIT DESCENDED INTO SHEOL.
MIKE: And now you are saying there is an eternal human. (Please clarify your definition of eternal).
COLIN: I ALREADY DID
COLIN: 3) What verses can you point to that in themselves explicitly declare Jesus to be the Father? And what verses can do the same to say that Jesus is the Holy Spirit?
MIKE: FATHER: Isaiah 9:6. Revelation 21:7. John 14:9-11.
COLIN: 9:6 IS REFERRING TO JESUS' ROLE IN CREATION..."FATHER OF ETERNITY".
MIKE: How does creation fit into the issue of Father of eternity? Please explain that interpretation, because I never heard that one before.
COLIN: TO CLAIM THIS IS HIS ACTUAL NAME IS A STRETCH, AT BEST.
MIKE: It is not His name, but His name, which was revealed to be Jesus, is called such and such. There is a difference.
Anyway, it is proof that Jesus is the eternal Father. And how many eternal Fathers are there? Two? It means someone here is eternal, and is known as "Father."
COLIN: BEYOND THIS, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERSE TO BE TALKING OF THE SON OF GOD...THE ONE THE FATHER WOULD SEND INTO THE WORLD? CLEARLY, THE SCRIPTURE ATTRIBUTES ETERNALITY AND OMNIPOTENCE TO THE SON OF GOD..."MIGHTY GOD" AND "ETERNAL FATHER".
MIKE: The SON is not eternal. But the ONE who became SON is eternal. If there is an eternal Son then there must be an eternal mother.
COLIN: Not so...but I've already hit on that. The eternal Sonship of Jesus is actually not the main issue here. We both agree with your above statement..."the ONE who became SON is eternal"...the question then becomes whether that ONE is separate from GOD THE FATHER AND/OR the HOLY SPIRIT.
MIKE: How could He be eternally begotten when the bible says THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE? You have all sorts of extra-scriptural titles and statements about God that actually contradict the only ones that are found in the bible. God the Son contradicts Son of God. Eternally Begotten Son contradicts This day have I begotten thee. And yet you do not stop to think of that contradiction of terms.
COLIN: MIKE, A FEW THINGS ON IS 9:6. FIRST, I THINK WE AGREE THAT IT IS TALKING ABOUT THE SON, FOR A "SON IS GIVEN". IT FLOWS PERFECTLY THAT HE BE CALLED MIGHTY GOD, BECAUSE THE ETERNAL SON WAS GIVEN FROM (SENT FROM) THE FATHER. IT IS THE ETERNAL SON WHO PUT ON A BODY, SO HE IS ALSO "A CHILD BORN". YET FOR YOU TO TURN AROUND AND SAY THE SON WILL BE CALLED "GOD THE FATHER" MAKES NO SENSE. HAVEN'T YOU SPENT ENOUGH TIME EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? YOU CLAIM THAT THE FATHER INDWELT THE SON (GOD IN THE FLESH), BUT THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CAN CLAIM THAT THE FATHER IS ACTUALLY THE SON, OR THAT THE SON WILL BE CALLED THE FATHER. I KNOW YOU DON'T HOLD TO THIS, BUT IT IS IN EFFECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHEN YOU USE THIS VERSE TO BACK UP WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'LL SIDE-STEP THE ISSUE OF ETERNAL SONSHIP NOW, I KNOW YOU LIKE TO QUOTE "THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE" - THERE IS FAR MORE TO THIS VERSE THAN YOU YOU'RE AWARE OF. YOU CANNOT USE THIS VERSE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.
COLIN: REV 21:7 - IT IS TRUE THAT JESUS, BEING GOD, IS IN A SENSE OUR FATHER. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS THE FATHER, AS DISTINCT FROM THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT.
MIKE: Distinguishing "A" Father from "THE" Father can lead to lots of trouble. He is the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6.
COLIN: IT CAUSES NO TROUBLE UNLESS YOUR WHOLE THEOLOGY IS BANKING ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS VERSE AND HANDFUL OF OTHERS. MIKE, THIS IS TOO BIG A POINT FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO ONLY BRING A FEW VERSES. GOD THE FATHER AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST ARE DISTINGUISHED ALMOST INNUMERABLY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY ALMOST EVERY NT AUTHOR. FOR YOU TO HAVE TO POINT TO THE OT AS YOUR PRIZE REFERENCE SHOWS THE WEAKNESS OF YOUR ARGUMENT. HOW CAN YOU CONTINUE TO PUSH THE "HUMAN/DIVINE" ARGUMENT WHEN JESUS CHRIST IS PREFACED BY LORD? HOW MANY "LORDS" ARE YOU ONENESS FOLK READY TO PAY HOMAGE TO? AND WHAT ABOUT II COR 13:4 - WHO IS THE HOLY SPIRIT?
MIKE: " The" is used. You could say He is "the eternal Father," for the two terms are synonymous in Hebrew. That only brings confusion to your thoughts about Revelation 21.
COLIN: THERE IS A SENSE IN WHICH JESUS, THE FATHER, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE OUR FATHER, SINCE THEY ARE GOD.
MIKE: And this is why we believe ONENESS.
COLIN: BUT JESUS IS NOWHERE CALLED "THE FATHER" OR "GOD THE FATHER".
MIKE: He is God and He is the everlasting Father. How much more do you need?
COLIN: MIKE, IT IS WITH THIS LOGIC THAT WE DEDUCE THE TRINITY, YET YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT. YOU'VE GOT TO PLAY BY YOUR OWN RULES.
COLIN: FURTHERMORE, WE ARE NOT ONLY CALLED THE "CHILDREN" (HEB 2:13) OF CHRIST, BUT THE "BRETHREN" OF CHRIST (HEB 2:11)
MIKE: We are called both. Both count since Oneness is what the Bible is proposing. This falls in perfect accord with the doctrine of Oneness. However, trinity demands all sorts of extrabiblical statements and creeds and councils.
COLIN: That statement is ridiculous. The Trinitarian Fathers saw the need to precisely articulate their beliefs against heretics. That Oneness requires the same is evidenced by the plethora of books published by David Bernard & Co. stating the Oneness position.
MIKE: That is the reason no oneness councils existed, when Oneness people were known to exist at that early time, by admission of Tertullian. It was all laid out in the Bible, and that was enough for the Oneness.
COLIN: BY THE WAY, WHAT IS YOUR AVERSION TO COUNCILS? WHAT'S WRONG WITH SYSTEMATICALLY LAYING OUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE SCRIPTURE TEACHES IN CERTAIN AREAS? I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY ONENESS TEACHERS ARE SO CONCERNED WITH COUNCILS, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THEIR DOCTRINE.
MIKE: At any rate, as Son He is brother, but as Father we are children. That concept is what Oneness is based upon.
COLIN: - CLEARLY THESE CANNOT BE TAKEN PHYSICALLY BUT FIGURATIVELY.
MIKE: In other words, He is not really our Father, but only figuratively. I highly disagree! In fact I think that that is dangerous to say. The physical is not the issue, anyway, Colin. The distinction (here we go with distinctions again -- ;-) ) is not physical and figurative, but rather physical and spiritual.
COLIN: YOU ARE RIGHT MIKE, SPIRITUAL IS A BETTER WORD THAN FIGURATIVE. GOOD POINT
MIKE: Spiritually we are His brothers and spiritually we are His sons, according to which manifestation of SON or FATHER we are referring to.
COLIN: MIKE, HAVE YOU EVER STOPPED TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU DISCREDIT THE TERMS TRINITY, ETERNAL SON, GOD THE SON, ETC. BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT FOUND IN THE PAGES OF SCRIPTURE? YET YOU TURN AROUND AND EMPLOY A THEOLOGICAL ARMADA OF TERMS THAT ARE LIKEWISE NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE. WHERE DO YOU FIND ANY REFERENCE TO A MANIFESTATION OF FATHER OR SON? JESUS CHRIST IS ALWAYS THE SON, AND NEVER REFERRED TO AS GOD THE FATHER IN THE NT. I'M SORRY, BUT YOUR USE OF THE TERMS MANIFESTATION AND ROLE IS FOREIGN TO SCRIPTURE. TO HELP PROVE MY POINT, IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS RIGHT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT AT LEAST A FEW TIMES PAUL WOULD HAVE SEPARATED THE SON FROM JESUS CHRIST, OR THE REFERRED TO GOD THE FATHER AS JESUS CHRIST, OR EVEN THE HOLY SPIRIT AS JESUS. OF COURSE, THIS NEVER HAPPENS BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE TEACHING IS FALSE.
COLIN: IN A NUTSHELL, CHRIST CAN HAVE THE ATTRIBUTES OF FATHER, BUT NOT BE "GOD THE FATHER". "GOD THE FATHER" NOT ONLY REFLECTS HIS ATTRIBUTES OR ROLE, BUT IS A PROPER NAME. JESUS NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE IS REFERRED TO AS THE FATHER. THIS OUGHT NOT BE A POINT YOU HAVE TO PROVE BY INFERENCE.
MIKE: I highly disagree. Father is not a proper name by any sense of the word. Father is a title. It has nothing to do with proper naming.
COLIN: IT IS BOTH. THAT'S WHERE YOUR CONFUSION LAYS. I GRANT YOU THAT THE TITLE/NAME FATHER TO A LARGE DEGREE REFLECTS HIS ASSUMED ROLE IN OUR SALVATION. BUT HE IS ALSO ADDRESSED AS "FATHER" BY JESUS IN THE FLESH. "GRACE, MERCY AND PEACE FROM GOD THE FATHER..." THESE THINGS DO NOT COME FROM A MERE TITLE OR OFFICE. IT IS VERY AWKWARD, IN REFERENCING THE ABOVE VERSE, TO READ IT THE WAY YOU DO. "GRACE, MERCY AND PEACE FROM GOD THE FATHER (A MANIFESTATION/TITLE/ROLE/OFFICE) AND FROM THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (A HUMAN person, DISTINCT FROM DEITY).
COLIN: JOHN 14 - I KNOW THIS IS A FAVORITE WITH ONENESS TEACHERS. MIKE, AT FIRST GLANCE THIS SEEMS TO SUPPORT YOUR TEACHING...BUT HOW CAN JESUS BE THE FATHER IF "I AM IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IS IN ME?" IF WE USE YOUR LOGIC IN I JOHN 4:15, WE COULD BE CONFUSED WITH BEING GOD! CLEARLY, THERE IS DISTINCTION IN BOTH CASES.
MIKE: Yes, there is a distinction. But it is teaching exactly what the Oneness proposes, and not what you have thought the oneness proposes. The Father literally indwelt the Son, which is something that Trinity does not agree with. And the literal indwelling, by cause of manifestation IN flesh, tells us that what actions the Son accomplished, the humanity, occurred due to the leading of the Father who was IN the Son, distinct in manifestation but not person. The Son inwardly surrendered His human will, as we all should do, to that of the Father's will who dwelt in Him .
The entire teaching of the Oneness is that the deity indwelt the humanity. That is the reason Jesus is both God and man. John 14 clearly supports this. The FLESH of Jesus was not God nor will ever be God. God tabernacled ("dwelt" in Greek - John 1:14) in flesh. Was the temple of the Old Testament actually God itself? No. God dwelt in it. Same with the temple of Christ's Body -- John 2:19). Oneness does not teach that the Son is the Father. Oneness teaches that the Father is inside the Son, and the two are not separate persons, but separate manifestations necessary for specific accomplishments for man's salvation.
COLIN: MIKE, YOU'VE STATED THIS VERY WELL. "ONENESS TEACHES THAT THE FATHER IS INSIDE THE SON..." TROUBLE IS, THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT THE *SON* BECAME FLESH AND INDWELT HUMANITY, NOT THE FATHER. GOD SENT HIS SON INTO THE WORLD. THE FATHER DID NOT INDWELL FLESH, THE SON DID. THE LOGOS - DISTINCT FROM GOD YET THE SAME SUBSTANCE OR BEING OR PERSON (JOHN 1, HEB 1) - IS WHO PUT ON A BODY, JOHN 1:14.
COLIN: MIKE, THIS IS A MAJOR POINT FOR WHICH YOU ARE NOT BRINGING FORTH MUCH EVIDENCE. YOU CANNOT POINT TO ONE CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHERE JESUS IS CALLED THE FATHER, OR THE FATHER IS CALLED JESUS.
MIKE: I did, and you refuse to acknowledge them. You did admit Jesus is Father but said He is not the Father. But the eternal (everlasting) Father is saying what you ask me to show you. I don't know where you got the issue of creation from the title everlasting Father. Nothing is said anywhere there about creation. You added that by presupposed inference. To leave it as it says, is to say there i not other explanation other than the fact that there is one Father and Jesus is His name.
COLIN: MIKE, THIS SHOWS STRETCH YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE. TO LEAVE IT AS IT SAYS IS DEFINITELY NOT TO SAY THAT THERE IS ONE FATHER AND JESUS IS HIS NAME...WHERE DO YOU SEE THE NAME JESUS IN THE VERSE?
MIKE: By the same token of your argument, though, you are failing to show me one specific verse or statement saying that God is three persons, or that there are any multiple of persons at all in the Godhead.
COLIN: MIKE, HEAR ME OUT. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT IS PRIMARILY IN THE NT.
COLIN: GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION
MIKE: Exactly. And it sounds awfully confusing to me that Jesus is the Everlasting Father , but you say He is only "a" Father and not "the" Father.
COLIN: Scripture makes the distinction, not me.
MIKE: You can only say that based upon presupposition and looking at these scriptures with premeditated opinion and theory. Nobody would have come with that doctrine on their own simply reading the Bible. The reason some did, is due to influence of Greek Hellenism, but that is another strain of debate.
COLIN: - IT WOULD SEEM FIT FOR HIM TO MAKE CLEAR THAT JESUS IS THE FATHER,
MIKE: Colin, if Trinity is so true, then it would seem fit to say somewhere that God is three! Somewhere! But its not there.
COLIN: I don't think God needs to express this any more clearly than He already has. Jesus baptism and II Cor 13:14 have seemed most convincing to the vast majority of Christians throughout the ages.
MIKE: Even the term persons existed at that time in the New testament day. But nobody used it to describe God anywhere in the entire New Testament.
COLIN: What do you think of Hebrews 1:3?
COLIN: JESUS IS THE SON, AND JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT. UNLESS YOU ARE WITHHOLDING REFERENCES, YOU ARE BASING A MAJOR POINT OF YOUR THEOLOGY ON THESE VERSES, IN ADDITION TO THE INFERENCE YOU DRAW FROM THE DISCIPLES' INVOCATION AT BAPTISM (ACTS2:38, ETC.). THE MANY VERSES SUCH AS REV 1:13 THAT CLEARLY ATTRIBUTE DEITY TO JESUS MAKE IT CRUCIAL THAT YOU PROVE YOUR POINT. CAN YOU SHOW ME MORE?
MIKE: I showed you far more in balance than what you have shown me stating that there are "three persons" in the Godhead. I showed you statements in the Bible that you argued away using presupposed theories that are not found anywhere in Scripture, but are derived thoughts. You showed me not a single verse that comes near your trinity teaching compared to the closeness that I come to my doctrine in my references. The weight rests on my side, Colin. I honestly believe that. All you do is say my references do not mean the Father, but a Father. I have the Everlasting Father. But where do you anything similar to "three persons" in the Bible?
Think about this carefully. Its crucial in this debate. You try to corner me and do not even think that the burden of proof rests on you, also, to show me one single verse literally saying three persons or anything similar. All you show me is three distinctions. I agree there are distinctions and that they exist in the verses you propose. But the disagreement is your insertion of the distinction of persons. Nothing at all proves that.
COLIN: What proves it is the interaction, individual Glory, and individual will each possesses.
MIKE: And to attempt to prove it, you assume that God's faculties as a person must be limited to your and my faculties, since we cannot accomplish things simultaneously due to our single personhood in the manner that God did.
COLIN: This is a very, very weak argument, Mike. I never assume this. I am simply showing you where God reveals Himself. It is you with whom the burden of proof rests. It is your job to explain why plain texts don't mean what they say because they don't fit your theology. Again, God is not the author of confusion. He could have explained Himself in a much clearer fashion than He did, if what you believe is true. What you want to believe defies too many linguistic principles in written language...Mike in light of your above comments, I have to say a few things. 1) Let's look closely at Isaiah 9:6. Unto us a child is born, a son is given...and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." Who is the subject of this verse, Mike? The Son! He is the child who will be born. And this is no ordinary child, for the Son is decked with all kinds of accolades - including Mighty God. There goes your theory that the Bible never calls the Son divine. He is identified as God Himself. And He is the Eternal Father, or Father of eternity (either are acceptable). What does this mean? You want it to meant that Jesus is the Father. But it doesn't say that. If you take this name as the NT name/title God the Father, than what the verse is saying is that the SON is the FATHER. Even you deny that statement. Mike, show me where I'm wrong on this one. You can't point to this and say that the Father is Jesus or Jesus is the Father. Regarding Rev 21:6, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Believers are referred to as the children that the Father gave Him. So in that sense, He is the Father of believers. But He is NEVER referred to as Father or addressed as God the Father - never. Mike, prove me wrong on this one. As I said before, this is a HUGE statement you're making, that Jesus is the Father or Holy Spirit. And it has been roundly rejected by the mass of Christendom through the ages. Mike, I don't understand why it is hard for you to see what the Bible says - God sent His Son. If God sent His Son, then His Son preexisted His own birth, or else He didn't send Him.
MIKE: (FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
HOLY SPIRIT: John 14:16-18, 26 (Jesus is the comforter. The Comforter is the Holy Ghost)
COLIN: I'M CONFUSED. THIS IS ONE OF THE CLEAREST PASSAGES SHOWING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT...AND YOU ARE USING IT TO SAY THE HOLY SPIRIT IS JESUS?
MIKE: Definitely! How many comforters are there, Colin? How much clearer can Jesus be? He said He would comfort them.
COLIN: THE CONTEXT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS COMFORTER IS DISTINCT FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON (VS 16). THIS DISTINCTION IS BORNE MORE FULLY IN VS 20 AND 23. IF JESUS IS THE FATHER, THAN SO ARE WE (I DON'T SAY THIS DISRESPECTFULLY). PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE THIS SAYS THAT JESUS IS THE COMFORTER.
MIKE: Of course there is distinction. But Jesus throws in Oneness teaching when he speaks the words of verse 18. He said that He would comfort them. . That means He is the comforter. One who comforts is a comforter.
COLIN: PRECISELY. ONE WHO COMFORTS IS A COMFORTER. BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE COMFORTER. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, MIKE.
MIKE: How many Alpha and Omegas are there? How many eternal fathers are there? How many comforters are there?
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
Romans 8:9 (Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ are synonymous here)
COLIN: THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT IS OF CHRIST (WHO IS GOD/MAN) AND GOD (SPIRIT). HOW DOES THIS SAY THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE FATHER?? YOU MUST FIRST ANSWER A SPECIFIC PROBLEM...IF GOD IS SPIRIT, HOW IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THE "SPIRIT OF GOD?"
MIKE: I used that verse to say Jesus is the Holy Ghost. You are saying exactly what Oneness is proposing. The idea of Spirit of Christ in the very sense you are putting it is how we differentiate between Son and Holy Ghost and Father. Same was with John 14's reference to Jesus telling Phillip to see Him is to see the Father. We did not propose what you thought we did about this verse. The Son has both a human spirit and a divine Spirit. The Spirit of Christ is the Holy Ghost . The Son is not the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of Christ in the Son is the Holy Ghost.
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
2 Corinthians 3:6, 17; 4:5 (Paul ministered THE SPIRIT OF GOD to the people, and The LORD is that SPIRIT. And He then said in the same teaching that He preached Jesus.)
COLIN: THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT IS HIMSELF GOD.
MIKE: How many Holy Spirits are there? Jesus is the Holy Ghost. Nothing could be clearer except to read, "THERE IS NO TRINITY", and trinity doctrine did not exist then anyway to be able to say that. ;-)
COLIN: THERE IS ONE HOLY SPIRIT, FOR THAT IS A PROPER NAME.
COLIN: THE FACT THAT PAUL MINISTERED THE SPIRIT TO PEOPLE AND PREACHED JESUS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HOLY SPIRIT IS JESUS. THE SPIRIT CONVICTS PEOPLE OF THEIR NEED FOR JESUS TODAY, AS WELL...BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE SPIRIT IS JESUS.
MIKE: In the context in which Paul spoke of the Spirit in chapter 3, chapters 4's reference to preaching Christ is indeed saying that the Holy Ghost is Jesus. Read my thoughts again carefully.
COLIN: I'VE READ IT AND RE-READ YOUR THOUGHTS. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE SUPPORTING YOUR PREMISE FROM THE SCRIPTURE. YOU'RE GOT TO DO A BETTER JOB OF CONVINCING ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS - SCRIPTURALLY - BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. SO FAR, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY BIG HOLE IN YOUR THEOLOGY.
COLIN: I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS POINT, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR YOUR THEOLOGY. PERHAPS A DIFFERENT ANGLE WOULD HELP. YOU SEEM CONTENT TO LET THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRET THE NEW. I SEE THE OPPOSITE HAPPENING IN SCRIPTURE - THE NEW SHEDS LIGHT ON THE OLD.
MIKE: Colin, the Old Testament contains descriptions of God's nature that are not added to in the New Testament with different descriptions never before made known.
I am saying this because trinity makes the quintessential error of not basing their doctrine of God''s nature on inspired texts alone. Hence your post biblical creeds and councils bear weight in your minds.
COLIN: NOTHING IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY CONTRADICTS ANYTHING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
MIKE: It does! It makes God to be eternally interacting with inherent multiplicity of persons. It contradicts the explicit statements that the unity of God can be divided.
COLIN: MIKE, YOU ARE BASING AN AWFUL LOT ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF A FEW VERSES. THE "ONE" IN DUET 6:4 CAN BE A UNITED ONE. IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE, THAN SHOW ME ONE VERSE THAT SAYS THE ONE TRUE GOD CANNOT EXIST IN THREE PERSONS.
COLIN: IF IT DID, WE WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS.
MIKE: You do have problems. We oneness people.
COLIN: THERE IS NOT ONE VERSE IN THE OT THAT SAYS THE ONE TRUE GOD CANNOT BE THREE PERSONS.
MIKE: You know yourself that the burden of proof lies in showing where God is said to BE three persons. If we were to leave from your standpoint, we could also say that nowhere does the Bible say God cannot be partly female, although we read that He is a He. Could He not be both if we were to use your basis of reasoning? The Roman Catholic Church is rife with this error, teaching that infant Baptism is not explicitly spoken against in the Bible, so its alright. If God took enough pains to speak of everything that the Lord is not, then the Bible would be in the process of being written until this day, and it would go on forever, thinking of all the things God could say that He is not. So the Bible simply says WHAT HE IS, and leaves it at that, not expecting us to add to that revelation with a trinity or binity. That is the most sensible conclusion in my opinion.
COLIN: It is true that God cannot forbid everything. But you don't understand my argument. Me saying that there are three divine persons in the Godhead is based on clear, repeated statements in the NT. You say that can't be true because the OT doesn't teach it explicitly. I only use my argument because you are negating the NT revelation because you think it can't bring in anything new on God's nature. The ball's back in your court.
COLIN: IT SOUNDS AWKWARD TO WRITE IT LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THERE IS SIMPLY NO ADEQUATE WAY TO EXPRESS THIS TRUTH. ALL THE VERSES THAT SAY THERE IS ONE GOD AND NONE OTHER ONLY SUPPORT THE TRINITY, BECAUSE TRINITARIANS ARE MONOTHEISTIC.
MIKE: So are Oneness people, but the fact remains that Oneness are basically more purely monotheistic than trinitarians. Our oneness is indivisible. Yours is not. Even monotheistic Moslems mock the trinity. Trinity is in its nature non-monotheistic. That is the reason through the ages that Trinitarians painted God with three heads on one body, or three faces on one head, or three separate bodies around a single table. That is not monotheism.
COLIN: Mike, feel free to set up your counsels and definitions of what monotheism means. Feel free to claim what you feel is the most "monotheistic". But in the end, it is God's definition that matters. I don't want the "purest monotheism" - I want GOD'S monotheism. There's a big difference.
MIKE: Essentially, your trinity of persons being eternally aware of one another, eternally loving one another, and eternally distinct from one another is no different from Apollo, Zeus and Mars, except in disclaimer distinction that these are not three gods but one God.
COLIN: Mike, your cute comments about history and pagan religions are really quite silly. Time to give it a rest, though. My belief in the Trinity are based on Scripture and not history...and certainly not other religions. I've not entered one scrap from any other source other than the Bible - I encourage you to try to do the same.
COLIN: I AFFIRM WITH YOU THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. I AM AS MONOTHESTIC AS YOU ARE. WE SIMPLY DISAGREE ON THE NATURE OF THE ONE TRUE GOD.
MIKE: I cannot agree with that, Colin. Its simply too far out from what the scriptures explicitly state for me to accept.
COLIN: I do encourage you to look at how you at times want explicit statements but then at other times feel the freedom to draw your own conclusions.
MIKE: And I think that if the background of trinitarian tradition were not as it is, and every trinitarian looked at their doctrine without fear of committing the unpardonable sin, many more would walk out on it, too. I cannot accept the idea that God eternally existed as three distinct persons. Never.
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
Please give me a verse that says this can't be so (not your own deductive reasoning).
COLIN: I DO FIND SOMEWHAT OF A DOUBLE STANDARD WITH THAT STATEMENT. ONENESS FOLK OFTEN ASK TRINITARIANS TO FIND EXPLICIT STATEMENTS FOR THE TRINITY, YET USE DEDUCTIVE REASONING TO PROPOSE THAT JESUS IS THE FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT (ETC.).
MIKE: Not really. Its repetition, but Isaiah 9:6 is good enough for me.
COLIN: YOU ARE ASKING ME TO PROVE THAT GOD CANNOT REVEAL MORE OF HIS CHARACTER IN THE NT, WHEN IT SEEMS PERFECTLY CLEAR TO ME THAT HE COULD.
MIKE: Where did He do that explicitly?
COLIN: THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO CLEAR STATEMENTS IN THE NT SAYING HE CAN'T DO THIS...BECAUSE HE DID IT! THE BURDEN OF PROOF, THEN, IS IN YOUR COURT. YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A SPECIFIC VERSE TO SAY HE CAN'T DO THAT.
MIKE: As I said it is illogical to demand that the Bible say all the things that God is NOT, rather than simply say what He is. It just doesn't make sense, Colin.
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
Colin, where do we read explicit teaching in the New Testament saying that the nature of God being three persons is truth. Explicit statements are found of God's nature in the Old Testament.
COLIN: EXPLICIT STATEMENTS OF GOD'S CHARACTER ARE FOUND IN BOTH THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT GOD'S FURTHER REVELATION OF HIMSELF IN THE NT DOES NOT NEGATE ON THE ISSUES YOU MENTIONED BELOW.
MIKE: No... they add to it. And the Bible speaks very sharply about adding to the revealed word.
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
ONE: Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:SAVIOUR: Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
OMNIPRESENT: Psalm 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Psalm 139:9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Psalm 139:10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
ALMIGHTY: Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
You get the point. These are explicit teachings. That is what we require in order to believe anything about God. But where is it explicitly taught that the nature of God is three persons in the New Testament? We do not find those ideas until three hundred years after the Bible was written.
COLIN: The NT revelation of Himself does not at all contradict anything in the OT.
MIKE: I totally agree! And nothing says that God is three persons in the New Testament. It is DERIVED by you. It is deductive reasoning to say otherwise.
COLIN: THOUGH IT IS NOT CLEARLY STATED IN THE NT, WHEN WE SEEK TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF GOD'S REVELATION, IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS IS HIS TEACHING. A DOCTRINE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE STATED IN PLAIN ENGLISH IN ONE VERSE TO BE TRUE :-) YOU MUST ALLOW FOR THE ILLUMINATION OF THE SPIRIT IN A BELIEVER'S LIFE - JOHN 14:26.
MIKE: I will never accept that, Colin. I cannot. The importance that your tradition lays upon the trinity doctrine, with its anathema's, and cursings to those who refuse to accept it, KNOWING FULL WELL, as you admit, that it is not clearly stated in the New Testament, is simply evil. Unless one does not believe it is a matter of salvation as formerly proposed by trinity's crowd. I would like to know if it is in your mind.
COLIN: Mike, you cannot determine what Truth is based on what people have done with it. I understand that many who claimed the name Trinitarian acted out of line through the ages. Remember, the Trinitarians far out number Oneness folk for whatever reason (I'll leave that up to you). But the fact that at times Trinitarians acted wrongly in hatred does not mean that what they believed was wrong. Only the future will tell how many of them truly knew Christ in a saving manner. Where do I stand? I do not believe one must completely understand God to know that Jesus died in His place and to believe on Him. However, I DO believe that we must consider the illumination of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Believing as I do that the truth of the Trinity is a very basic doctrine, I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit can live within someone and they not understand the God they know. It would be easy for me to believe that a baby Christian believes the Oneness, but I'd be shocked if that stuck for any period of time. This is not meant to be offensive, friend, but you asked how I feel. I do not judge you, that is God's job. To be honest, I'm far more concerned with your doctrine of baptismal regeneration...regardless what Name is invoked...that is to me adding works to the Gospel of grace alone through faith alone. You asked, I answered...let's not get side tracked on that now but save that for another exchange
COLIN: I give a hearty AMEN to the monotheistic teachings of Duet 6 and Isaiah 43. But I see clearly that the One God exists as a Trinity.
MIKE: You said clearly. Above you said it is not clearly stated.
COLIN: Clearly stated, but not explicitly stated would be a better way to phrase it.
MIKE: (FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
The seven eyes are the seven spirits of God. And we see them simultaneously running throughout the entire earth. You must admit that using your reasoning of Jesus' baptism with three simultaneous manifestations proving the existence of three persons of the Godhead demands that God be an additional 7 persons in the Godhead, if you say that simultaneous manifestations at the baptism demands faith in three persons.
COLIN: THIS IS A WEAK ARGUMENT. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S AN ISOLATED ILLUSTRATION. THE NEW TESTAMENT IS REPLETE WITH REFERENCES TO THE FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT.
MIKE: So? That does not demand that there be three eternal persons.
COLIN: SECONDLY - TO TAKE YOUR EXAMPLE - NO INTERACTION IS RECORDED BETWEEN THE SEVEN EYES AND ALSO THEY ARE EXPLAINED. BUT WHEN WE READ "THE FATHER SENT THE SON..." AND "THE FATHER LOVES THE SON", WE CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING OF ONE "PERSON".
MIKE: Clearly? You said this is not clearly stated. I want to point out that you keep bouncing back to a paradigm, and do not notice it. Be consistent, friend.
The only way that you can say these manifestations are distinct persons is to speak from a comparison of the characteristics of our personhood and God's, and demanding that God''s abilities of a single person be no greater than ours so far as it goes with interactive relationships. That is the basis of my greatest refutation of trinity doctrine. With all due respect, when speaking of the nature of God differing from man, it is rather nonsensical, to say the least, that we use the reasoning that the mere mention of Father and Son demands interpretation that two persons are noted.
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
We see God's Spirit moving while at the same time God spoke His word in Genesis. In fact, trinitarians use that to say that the trinity is shown just as it was shown working simultaneous at Jesus' baptism. But its interesting that the Jews never attributed that to Him being three persons after reading Genesis.
COLIN: WHY WOULD THEY TALK OF THREE PERSONS FROM THAT ACCOUNT?
MIKE: Beats me. But your comrades have done it with me.
COLIN: MIKE, THIS IS AN INTERESTING LITMUS TEST. "GO," YOU SAY, " TO THE JEWS"...TO THE UNREGENERATE JEWS, WHOSE ANCESTORS CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY...GET THEIR REACTION?!
MIKE: Yes, Colin. Their perception from the Old Testament descriptions of God's nature is right on the button!
COLIN: According to Oneness, that is
MIKE: The only thing they missed was the message of the GOSPEL and the mystery of salvation, for that is the only mystery that the Old Testament did not contain in explicit form. God did not blind them from His nature, but from His salvation plan.
2Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
This is speaking of the Gospel, not the nature of God. Where did you get the idea that God blinded them from His full nature? Again, where does the New Testament make one statement of God's nature that is not found in the Old Testament? So far as God's nature is concerned, yes, the litmus test is to go to Jews, who held the only righteous concept of monotheism in man's history before Christianity.
The following teaches that the blinding was towards salvation, so that salvation could go to the Gentiles.
Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded Romans 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. Romans 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Romans 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
We do not read that their fall allowed understanding the true nature of God to instead go to the Gentiles.
Trinities existed in paganism long before the church existed. During Old Testament times, when the Israelites worshipped God ignorant of any trinity at all, pagans believed in trinities of one person of deity. According to your reasoning, the Israelites were less ignorant of their own God than pagans were, as to His nature.
COLIN: Mike, the foolishness of your arguments are self evident. No answer needed
COLIN: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT IF I WERE TO ASK THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO THEIR MESSIAH IS, I DON'T BELIEVE JESUS WOULD BE IN THEIR TOP TEN. GOD GAVE THE JEWS CERTAIN LIGHT, AND THEY AT TIMES ENDEAVORED TO WALK IN IT.
MIKE: That is because Messiahship is part of the Gospel Mystery . I think you see my point.
COLIN: THE FACT THAT GOD CHOSE TO REVEAL MORE OF HIMSELF IN LATER REVELATION DOES NOT MEAN THIS IS A FALSE DOCTRINE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DRIVING AT, BUT WE HOLD JUST AS DOGMATICALLY AS YOU AND THE JEWS TO A STRICT MONOTHEISM.
MIKE: I will never agree to that statement. Monotheism in all forms, until trinitarianism, never accepted anything similar to multiple personhood. You guys are the new kid on the block, and you don't fit in, Colin.
(FROM PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE)
The trinity idea is simply too great a change from the Old testament for there to have not been a "load" of teaching on it, explicitly in the New Testament.
COLIN: MIKE, THERE IS A LOAD OF TEACHING ON IT IN THE NT. I WOULD CONSIDER IT TO VERY DIRECT, AS WELL.
MIKE: I disagree. You said yourself its not clear. Something made you say that earlier.
COLIN: I AM WITH YOU WHEN YOU SAY THAT WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY. PLEASE NOTE THAT NOT ONE OF MY ARGUMENTS HAS BEEN BASED ON HISTORY...ALL IS SCRIPTURE. YOU MUST KNOW THAT THE WORD TRINITY WAS ONLY DEVISED TO ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE GOD AS HE IS REVEALED IN THE NT.
MIKE: It was a mistaken attempt. It added the thought of three persons. Again, nothing in the Bible said that God was three anythings. Nothing.
COLIN: THE STATEMENTS OF THE EARLY CHURCH WERE DRAWN UP FOR PRECISELY THE POINT YOU MENTIONED...THEY KNEW HERETICS WERE TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINE, SO THEY SOUGHT TO UNIFY BY RECORDING THEIR DOCTRINAL BELIEFS. THE FACT THAT THESE DID NOT HAPPEN UNTIL THE 3RD OR 4TH CENTURY DOES NOT MEAN THE TRINITY WAS INVENTED THEN - THE STATEMENTS WERE NEEDED BECAUSE SOME "HERETICS" WERE DENYING KEY DOCTRINES SUCH AS THE TRINITY, WHICH WERE COMMONLY ACCEPTED AND TAUGHT IN THE CHURCHES!
MIKE: You have absolutely no proof that trinity was taught in the churches. In fact, historically I can prove that Oneness people far outnumbered the trinitarians in the early church by trinitarians' own admission.
COLIN: Mike, this is not true.
MIKE: You speak from a prejudiced standpoint, and interpret what you think occurred in those days according to a circular reasoning saying that you are right because you are right. All that we have from those days are writings from the intellectually elite people. And its sad that they just happened to be former Greek philosophers. I think that should cast severe suspicion on your doctrine right away. And the first near-to-trinity doctrine proponent was Justin Martyr, who looked to the greek pagan Plato for support.
I only mention this for interest's sake.
COLIN: That's what you say. But you are really trying to make a point with it, because you keep bringing these points up. They are very seriously false.
MIKE: But the error I believe that you are making as we proceed in this wonderful debate is that you feel we can add to what is "clearly" revealed in the Bible,
COLIN: I agree with you on this, you simply perceive incorrectly what I'm saying.
MIKE: whereas I propose that we should stand on nothing except what is revealed "clearly" in the Bible. And you make it a matter of salvation that we stand on a non-biblically-clear doctrine called trinity, unless you feel it is not a matter of salvation, unlike the creators of trinity teaching.