Mike,
Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply. I apologize again that I often am the one holding things up. When I received your last email and noted how you had posted our exchange on your web page, I thought this was the best way to respond. Below are some of the main arguments you have put forth. I feel we're getting into so much detail, yet some of your major points need to be addressed. It is my sincere opinion that you have multiple flawed pillars upon which you rest your doctrine. The below points may be more of an argumentation from logic than from Scripture, but I welcome your response.
1) History.
You have made many references to history. I am not interested at this point in diving into a debate on history; too laborious and complex for right now.
Yet in reading your comments and others (Bernard, etc.) it not only seems that your historians have an agenda but also that you seek to take things too far with your conclusions.
Mike, your repeated claims that the fathers were influenced by Plato and the like are off base. These men presented their case from Scripture. Many of these men lived lives of danger rather than avoid persecution. Many of them died as martyrs for the cause of Christ. Even if their were citations of Plato of some sort, to purport that they actually derived their conclusions based on extra-biblical sources (pagan sources) is simply absurd. Don't you find it interesting that I never referenced history or other pagan sources in my declaration and defense of the Trinity? Where do you find in official creeds of any repute - either early church fathers or modern (Puritan and following) - citations of Plato or other pagans to establish their case? I used Scripture from first to last to present my case and refute yours. In no way do I concede that Plato or other pagans influenced the fathers to teach the Trinity. But whatever influence, if any, Plato and company had on the Fathers, they have not influenced ME. Honestly, I couldn't even tell you exactly when the man lived or what his life message was. I know I studied it some time ago in school, but sadly to say, such information has long since left me.
But let us ponder for a moment the issue of history, since you brought it up. Surely you concede that the vast body of "Christendom" - even including those only nominally Christian - is Trinitarian. Oneness, at best, is an obscure sect throughout the ages, as it is now - although it seems to be growing. The fact that the overwhelming mass of true believers are Trinitarian SHOULD catch your attention. Your use of Matthew 7 shows the weakness of your position. Matthew 7 is referring to the lost, not the saved, for Christ never knew them. You actually seem to propose that the majority of God's people since the resurrection - redeemed, indwelt by God Himself, and possessing the very mind of Christ - don't even know the foundation of the very God who saved them and Whom they adore. Despite the fact that many of them enjoy amazing and sweet fellowship with Him and gladly suffer harm for His sake and even die for Him - these saints have been blinded to the most foundational of Christian truths. Amazing. And the God whom they pursue with their whole heart is a complete stranger to them. Mike, I find this assertion of yours to be preposterous, the height of folly. I will be the first to say that history, or the majority of believers owning a doctrine, cannot make a doctrine true. But I cannot believe anyone would walk away thinking Oneness is true based on the number of Godly men who resoundingly rejected it or the others who never even would of thought of such a "doctrine" to begin with. Rather, it seems like a very good reason to give Trinitarianism a second look.
Mike, you made statements along the lines of "people would never come to the conclusion of the Trinity without biased teaching." Nothing could be further from the truth; exactly the opposite is true. Saved and unsaved alike see the Trinity in the Bible. As I work with both Jews and Muslims, they reject the New Testament because of Trinitarian teaching. And no Trinitarian taught them about the Trinity. They point to chapter and verse and say the Bible is trash because it does not align with what they believe God to be. And yet, when we have the joy of seeing Jews and Muslims come to saving faith in Christ, the lights are turned on and they rejoice in the awesome tri-une God they have come to know, love and serve. In your zeal to cling to Oneness, you want to believe that Trinitarianism is the product of polluted teachers throughout the centuries. Yet new converts joyfully discover, through the leading of the Holy Spirit, their Triune God. It is personally my conviction that Satan himself, in instituting Islam, made the foundational pillar the so-called "strict monotheism" of which you so confidently boast. It appeals to the flesh, and dismisses as folly that grand doctrine that can only be truly grasped and understood through the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
2) Old and New Testament.
A major argument of yours is that the Trinity is simply too far a leap (a "grand canyon") from the teachings of the OT.
Though I have had interaction with Oneness teachers in the past, I have never encountered this argument before. I fear, though, that it has such a grip on that you can't see beyond it. It is so ironic to me that you dispute the Trinity based on a lack of explicit teaching, yet often employ arguments that lack the very thing you demand of me. Where do you find any teaching ANYWHERE in the Bible that says that God's revelation of Himself is complete once one reads the book of Malachi?! Your argument is not what God teaches but what you WANT to believe. It is actually hard for me to refute this argument soundly - how do I Biblically refute a notion that isn't even mentioned once in Scripture? I can only remind you that it was only through the incarnation that God was truly "declared", "explained" or "made known" - John 1:18. He was made known through the Word. That is, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The fact that John takes the time to introduce the concept that the Word existed with God - yet was Himself creator God - in this passages shows that he is introducing new revelation concerning God's Being. Note that the NT authors in John, Colossians, Hebrews, and Revelation all take significant time in chapter one to lay down a correct understanding of Jesus (the "Word", the "Son"). The Holy Spirit is very careful to lay the correct foundation in His revelation of Jesus through the various authors.
This teaching you've received colors your thinking more than you're aware. You have vehemently argued this case, yet failed to produce ONE viable verse or Scriptural argument that supports it. Mike, step back and view the Bible as a whole. God never intended His revelation to stop with the OT. The fact that God revealed more of Himself in the NT should not surprise anyone, especially as the opening texts record the miraculous incarnation. Please see my point that this argument has been dreamed up by those who so passionately want to believe their theology. Your argument is not once stated or implied in all of Scripture. Furthermore, to discard the Trinity based on the notion that it is a departure from Old Testament revelation of God is to condemn your own beliefs, as well. The NT language of God, God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son, the Word, and the Holy Spirit is not found in the OT as it is in the NT. Yet God nowhere offers any explanation of this - as to whether these are divine Persons or simply manifestations of God. You must at a minimum acknowledge that God employs new terminology yet feels no need to explain the new language - if you are correct, both the Trinity and modalistic view of God are struck down. God certainly does not reveal Himself as the "Word" in the OT, with a view to modalism; nor does He employ any of the other terms in that way.
That aside, so WHAT if God didn't reveal Himself completely to the Jews? What's wrong with that? Don't base your definition of monotheism solely on the OT, but let the light of the New Covenant teaching be your guide. The monotheism of the OT governs the tri-unity confirmed in the NT. And remember - the only monotheism that really matters is that which God has revealed. To say the Jews and Muslims believe in a "purer" monotheism is really a moot point here. I'd much rather be safe on that Day believing God's definition than a second-best.
3) Lack of explicit statements or teaching
This is always an objection from cults and those in the UPC (or modalists in general). This has got to be the weakest weapon in your armada. Yet strangely, it is used the most. Take a step back for a moment and ask yourself this question...Does God REALLY have to spell everything out for us in black and white? If you answer yes, than tell me why! To use your logic, where does God explicitly state that He has to explicitly state a doctrine? If you answer that He doesn't always have to do that but would in the case of giving a different teaching about His being, I will answer you in two ways: 1) The undeniable fact that the vast hosts of Christendom can see the Trinity in Scripture is proof positive that God has made Himself clear enough. You will likely cry Headcounting"! ...but, so what? True believers who may disagree about many other things have this belief in common. To say that it is such a leap of faith ("grand canyon") is odd, seeing as so many believers have made the jump so easily. Beyond that, even athiests, Jews and Muslims see the Trinity in the Bible...it isn't that hard to see! 2)To say that the teaching is DIFFERENT than the OT reflects a very poor understanding of Scripture. If the NT taught multiple gods, than that would be a contradictory doctrine. But the NT doctrine is the OT doctrine in its full blaze of glory. For some insane reason you assert that the NT teaching of God cannot be different than the OT. Again, your assertion is baseless and unscriptural. The NT doctrine of God is simply the full revelation and is of course governed by explicit teaching in the OT. The triunity of God taught in the NT is preserved against polytheism by explicit monotheistic statements in both the Old and New Testaments. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that within the monotheism of our God there can't be three "Persons". And this is not circular reasoning, Mike, because obviously millions of believers have arrived at the conclusion that God is a Trinity. To use your logic, it seems that at least ONCE God would have prevented any confusion and simply stated that there are not three distinct Persons in the Godhead, but only three manifestationd/offices/roles. Of course, Trinitarian theology is never once forbad. That is a very important point as so many Christians assert Trinitarian teaching to be so crucial in Scripture. Similarly, and I'll hit this later, the Oneness teaching of manifestations is never, either.
Let me summarize my thoughts in this way. There are many statements/words that have been utilized by you and me in our exchange, none of which are explicitly taught in Scripture as pertains to the doctrine of God. Some of them are: Trinity, Incarnation, manifestation (or office/role), God the Son, Jesus is God the Father, Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
4) Manifestations, not Persons
Flowing from the above thought, Oneness teaches that a plurality of Persons is false because (amongst other things) it is not explicitly taught in Scripture. Trouble for you, Mike, is that this argument comes back to haunt you. In shedding more light on the Godhead than the OT, the NT has much to say about God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son. Yet it never ONCE stops to clarify that these names/titles are simply MANIFESTATIONS/OFFICES/ROLES...nor does it say explicitly that they are Persons. So, in order to declare our doctrine, both of us have to forego the expectation of explicit statements. In the KJV, both "PERSON" and "MANIFEST" are used once in regards to the Godhead/Incarnation. It is said that the divine Son is identical to the to Person of God [the Father, implied]. It seems only natural that if one person has an identical other, than there are two persons. Yet I do not use that verse to say the Bible talks about Persons, but only to show distinction and that they are both God. But to use the word "manifest" as it is used in I Tim 3:16 (as an adjective) and say it supports your Oneness teaching of "manifestation" (noun) is entirely unbiblical grammatically incorrect. The verse simply states that God was manifest("clearly evident") in the flesh. That statement by itself can support both the Trinitarian and Oneness teaching. You simply say that the one indivisible God was manifest, and we say that the Son, Who is God (Heb 1:3) was manifest. But understand that there is NO mention of manifestation(s) of God anywhere in Bible, as you teach it. That verse does not lend any credence to your teaching whatsoever. I am open to you proving me wrong on this one!
Mike, there is also a very important point you seem to miss. In distinguishing between the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, PERSONAL terms are employed. That is why we conclude there are multiple Persons. God reveals Himself in that way and nowhere clarifies Himself..."Wait a minute. Although I chose to employ terms of personality, I really meant for you to believe in manifestations..." When is says that the Father loves the Son, or the Spirit searches the deep things of God, it is clear that PERSONS are being discussed. When the Spirit took the form of a dove and the Father verbally affirmed His Son, it is only natural to conclude that they are distinct PERSONS - not manifestations. Although you don't want to accept it, it is far more natural to accept the teaching of multiple Persons than manifestations. No where does God even make reference to manifestations of God.
Finally, Scripture says that God was manifest in the flesh. You put a period there, but God doesn't. He expounds on that truth. The Bible says that the Father sent His son into the world (John 3:17); He says the eternal Word became flesh (John 1:14), Jesus became human (Heb 2:14), and that the Son was manifest (I John 3:8). All of these point to the pre-existence of the second person of the Trinity, not an indivisible God simply putting on a body. I will add that your exposition of II John 3 is wholly inadequate and inconsistent with Scripture. I am still waiting ot hear a valid explanation from you and other Oneness teachers as to why that verse does not meant what it says - that the Father and Son are two distinct persons.
Beyond this, the eternal sonship of Jesus is quite clear in a number of passages. To begin with, God the Father addresses Him as "God" and "Lord" in Hebrews 1. Beyond that, divine worship is afforded Him, as well as the creative prerogative. God by definition is eternal, and the Son is God, so the Son is eternal. Nothing at all is mentioned of the Son being a "plan" in God's mind - He is the creator and sustainer of the universe. Colossians 1:16,17 says that the Son is the Creator of all things, and currently sustains all things by His power. These actions reflect the truth that the Son is God, and therefore eternal. Hebrews 7:3 states this truth more plainly than I ever could; I don't know why you can't see the eternality of the Son in Scripture.