ONENESS/TRINITY DEBATE WITH COLIN SEAGER - Part 6

Hi Colin,

In your most recent rebuttal, you make reference to my alleged use of history to be one of my strongest points to prove the error of the Trinity doctrine.  However, I agreed that referencing history is not our main issue.  The truth of the matter is that I make causal reference to history in order to bring out a point how you and trinitarians everywhere are absolutely biased against any other interpretation of the Godhead based upon scripture, because of the centuries of ingrained indoctrination about a detail that is never explicitly referred to in scripture.  You claim that I take things too far when perusing historical events surrounding Trinitarian councils and their "anathemas".

The reality is that trinitarians take far too great a leap of assumption when even promoting that the Bible teaches trinity doctrine, since nowhere is anything similar to "three persons" ever written in scripture.  Note that, Colin.  Nowhere.

Are my claims false when I propose that Justin Martyr was influenced by Plato?  I think not.  Justin Martyr was a former philosopher.  Your kinship to his trinity doctrine causes you to be be prejudiced against ever criticizing Martyr's former associations with Philosophy.

But Martyr himself said this:

"We do not, if you have no objection, wholly disown Plato."

"How, then, is God to be searched out, O Plato?"  Then Martyr quotes Plato:

"  'For both to find the Father and Maker of this universe is a work of difficulty; and having found Him, to declare Him fully, is impossible. (1)' "

"Why so? by Himself, I beseech you! For He can by no means be expressed. Well done, Plato! Thou hast touched on the truth. "

Here, Martyr is arguing Trinity by reporting that the well-liked Plato spoke similar things concerning God.

Martyr continues:

"And let it not be this one man alone--Plato; but, O philosophy, hasten to produce many others also, who declare the only true God to be God, through His inspiration, if in any measure they have grasped the truth. "

Did you read that, Colin?  Martyr said that God inspired Plato's words!

I do not claim that Martyr derived his thoughts from Plato's words, but point out to you that Martyr was a former philosopher, and quotes Plato, a philosopher, as being inspired of God to write what he did.

And you still think Martyr was a cool dude?

And whether or not Plato influenced you, the fact remains that your "Church Fathers"  used him in support of their doctrine.

You note that the vast majority of Christians throughout the centuries supported Trinitarian doctrine, although I distinctly pointed out to you that counting heads does not prove or disprove a doctrine's veracity. Here is what I wrote before.

"But where in the Bible are we taught to count heads in order to determine which doctrine is the correct one?  You say later in this note to me that the majority of believers stand upon trinity doctrine.  So what? In fact, we are told that there are MANY who call Jesus LORD, but whom Jesus does not truly know."

The Bible teaches that the road to destruction is traversed by the majority, and the road to life is strait and narrow and discovered by few.  Since you mentioned this fact more than once, and continue to affirm that counting heads places trinitarian doctrine as the correct one, then the fact that the Bible stated that counting heads is a bad way to determine who is right is ignored by you.

You claim that Matthew's quotes of Jesus in this respect of counting heads refers to the lost and cannot apply to this issue.  That is completely incorrect.  Are you saying that you can simply look to anything that calls itself Christian, and thereby determine the truth by counting alleged Christian heads?  You must be saying so, for you are denying that such a reference to counting heads, as made by Jesus, can apply to this issue.  You are stating that counting heads is wrong only when it comes to sinners, but is certainly a valid way of determining truth when you count the heads of all who claim any form of christianity.  Mormons claim Christianity.  JW's do also.  You are saying that trinity doctrine is true on account of the fact that there are more trinitarians than Mormons or JW's?

The idea that trinitarians represent Christians in the world because they comprise the majority of self-proclaiming christians is nonsense, and I am really surprised you use this as one of your arguments.

My references to history were so outweighed by my references to Scripture, that I am also surprised that you took so much of your last rebuttal by making reference to this issue of history.  Compare the amount of information I propose regarding history to the amount of information I gleaned from Scripture in my rebuttals to you, and contrast that with how much time you spent in this last rebuttal speaking about history and counting heads.

You claim that the people who believe in trinity are God's people.  That is a circular argument.  Am I one of the people of God in your mind? What if the trinitarians are not God's people at all?  You cannot base any argument upon such prejudiced statements saying that the vast majority of God's people are trinitarians.  What if God sees Oneness people as His true people?  I can state that as easily as you can state that you did.  But I would be circular in my arguments, so I do not make such claims.

You implied that because trinitarians have died for Christ that their deaths prove that their doctrine of trinity must be true, since knowing the nature of God is so basic and foundational to Christianity.

1 Corinthians 13:3 implies that one can give one's body to be burned and yet be out of God's will.

JW's claim sweet fellowship with God and have given their lives for their faith time and again.  But does that make them right?  Colin, you surprise me with what seems to "amaze" you.  JW's seek God with their whole hearts, and yet we both agree that they simply do not even know who God is.  I seek God with my whole heart, and by His grace would die for Him, too.  But you think that I do not know who God really is. Michael Servetus gave His life for the Oneness position that he held, as John Calvin had him murdered.  But you would not say that that proves Servetus doctrine was true.

But let us get on with the debate.

You argue my reasoning that heathens would never conclude trinity to be correct after having read the Bible without previous indoctrination. You say that they are given revelation about the triune God when they come into your doctrinal position and convert from their former faith. That is so terribly circular,   Jews and Moslems have converted to Oneness faith also.  And they claim to have experienced enlightenment from God and rejoice in Him.  It is absolutely circular for you to claim that God is revealed trinity doctrine to your former Moslems.   You have to base your arguments on scripture, Colin.  I am amazed at the length of information you provide me with in this most recent rebuttal of Oneness that deals with such extra-scriptural arguments.  Get a simple common person and give them this test.  Not a Moslem or Jewish cleric who devotes time to studying contrary doctrines and refuting them.

You claim that Moslems and Jews reject the New Testament because of the Trinity.  That is only so amongst those who are convinced without even studying New Testament, that the New Testament is trinitarian in concept.  As you stated, the vast majority of alleged Christians are trinitarian.  So obviously the Moslems and Jews, who probably do not even know that ONENESS Christians exist, would assume the New Testament to be trinitarian.  We have found Jews and Moslems shocked to discover that there are Oneness Christians who deny the trinity as they do.  And they were happily shocked.  One rabbi told one of our ministers that it made all the world of a difference to learn  that the New Testament is not trinitarian at all, and that trinitarianism was a poor and carnal attempt to interpret what the New Testament really says.  He only took it for granted that Trinitarians were correct in saying that the NT was trinitarian.

You claim the Holy Spirit revealed to these former Moslems and Jews the doctrine of the trinity.  Colin, you are as circular in your reasoning as one can get.  Please study the debate error of being circular in your arguments.

My proposal to you was to get someone not aligned with religion at all, and let them read the New Testament, and ask them whether they felt there were three eternal persons in the Godhead, describing the trinity doctrine to them , and showing them Oneness doctrine that proposes one absolute person in the Godhead.  Just a common person.  Moslems and Jews have devoted themselves to attack the trinity simply because it goes against everything to do with the truth of an absolute One God.

You say that the thought of "strict monotheism" appeals to the flesh. That is profoundly silly.  How is it so?  The fact was that polytheism was rife with fleshly pleasing religion, in stark contrast to the Hebrew faith of the Old Testament.

If Satan instituted Islam's foundational pillar of "strict monotheism", then you must say that Satan also instituted the Hebrew foundation strict monotheism in Deut 6:4 as well.  And I would be terrified to imply anything of the sort.  The Old Testament assures us that polytheism, not strict monotheism, appealed to the flesh.  Read the Old Testament history of polytheistic idolatry and the temptations associated with it.  You see nothing in the Bible that associates strict monotheism to fleshly temptation.  Perhaps your adherence to such chasm-wide assumptions such as  "three eternal persons" causes you to make other statements that are absolutely not even hinted at in scripture, such as saying that "strict monotheism" is appealing to the flesh.

Why did idolatry appeal so much so to the flesh that God had to repeatedly warn Israel against it?  I often wondered how it was that polytheistic idolatry was so appealing to even God's people.

I discovered that polytheistic idolatry is the forming of a god by man, so that the alleged god holds only those capabilities that one desired it to have.  And the worship of a god that only has the capabilities that a human intended it to have is to certainly appeal to flesh.

Also, you show such idolatrous traits as believing in what you call "that grand doctrine that can only be grasped and understood through the teaching of the Holy Spirit."  Since the Bible is absolutely silent on the subject of "three eternal persons", and yet you lay such foundational importance on that idea, one can see rife idolatry in your mind, and yet you do not even know it is there.  Your fathers concocted what they felt was such am awesome image of God in their minds, and so complicated, despite your claims that it can be grasped,  that one cannot fully comprehend the trinity, they say, making it one of the most idolatrous accomplishments ever construed by man.  Nothing in the Bible states that God is three persons and each person is eternal, and yet is not a god apart from the other person.  Your fathers claim that It is a mystery that simply cannot be grasped.

Your thoughts that only by certain revelation can the Trinity be grasped smack of gnosticism, in which is taught the idea that truth is privy only to those initiated and absolutely hidden from everyone else.  The Godhead is not a mystery according to Romans 1:20.

You seem amazed that my thought of how trinity doctrine is such a canyon-wide leap of assumption is so ingrained with in me.  Colin, its simple.  The Bible says nothing about "three persons" or "three whatevers" for that matter, that comprise the Godhead.  I am amazed you cannot see how much a leap of assumption you have to make to stand so firmly as you do on such an extrabiblical concept.  I accuse you of doing so only because there are so many who  propose trinity, also.  You said so, yourself.

I have dozens and dozens of verses that call God one.  Where is He called three?

You have repeatedly told me in email after email, that I accuse trinitarians of making extrabiblical statements while at the same time I make them myself.  (Your most recent rebuttal so far has hardly added anything new that is of substance to the debate.)

You have said for at least the third time now that God is not limited to reveal His nature only in the Old Testament.  And every single time I have stated before that the burden of proof lies upon you to show me one single explicit statement in the New Testament that provides us with a fact about God's nature that is not given in the Old Testament.  So far you have not been able to give me one single verse from the New Testament that informs us of a facet of God's nature that was never given in the Old Testament.  Will you likewise fail this time, also?  I suspect so.

You ask how you can refute a notion that is not found in the scripture. You build a straw-man argument when you say that I propose God cannot reveal more of His nature in the New Testament that is beyond that provided in the Old Testament.  Colin, that is not what I said.  I simply said that there is no statements found in the entire New Testament that add to the revelation of God's nature in the Old Testament.  I asked you to show me where there was.  You have not done so, but you continued to say that I am wrong in assuming God cannot reveal more of Himself in the New Testament.

Around and around the merry-go-round we have went and you still take us nowhere.

So let us settle this once and for all.  Show me one verse that adds to the revelation of God's nature as revealed in the Old Testament, that is not stated in the Old Testament already.

You can refute my argument very easily by arguing against what I said and not what you are twisting, albeit unconsciously (I hope), what I said.  Give me one verse that says something about God's nature that is not found in the Old Testament.

You say that only through the incarnation was God truly made known or declared.  You said that John 1's reference to the Word being with God and created all things at the beginning is new and additional revelation of God's nature.  I strongly disagree.  John is only using different words to explain what Genesis 1 already told us.  God SPOKE all things into being through His word.  God SAID let there be, and there was. That word, just as your word or my word,  expressed  Himself.  I cannot read your mind.  But when you SPEAK to me or WRITE to me, you are expressing what is the real you to me.  And John said the same thing about the Word of God.

The only difference is that the form of God's word was magnified more than it had ever been when it was expressed this time in human flesh as a human person.  You twist that idea so out of shape that you claim here is a second person of the Trinity that we discovered, even though God made no such claims.

John 1:18 says that no man has seen God at any time.  But the Son of God declared Him.  That verse is teaching us about GOD, and contrasts GOD with the Son of God, in its true context.  It is only telling us that although man cannot see God, God is being made known to us through the Son of God.

When I told you that God's nature was explicitly told to involve omnipotence, and omnipresence, and love, etc, from the Old Testament, I asked you to provide me with statements like those that are only found in the New Testament, that go beyond what we are told in the New Testament.  And since trinity is so foundational to you people, you should have at least one single statement in the New Testament that goes beyond the Old, and says, "God is three persons."  But my argument has always been and still stands, that not anything similar is ever mentioned.

And I already pointed out to you that if the WORD is the SON and the term GOD refers to FATHER in John 1:1, then you contradict your own doctrine.  It would read, "In the beginning was the Son.  And the Son was with the Father and the Son was the Father."  You did not comment on that one yet!

You state that John, Colossians, Hebrews and Revelation all take time to lay a correct understanding of Jesus.  But yet you cannot find one single statement yet that shows us that there is additional information about God's nature that is not found in the Old Testament.  Do not use John 1:1, for, as I already  showed you, that is only repeating Genesis 1's scenario.  Your own trinitarian commentators said that, from whom I quoted before.

You claim I have not provided one viable scripture to argue my point as being true.  Colin, I did!  I showed you Isaiah 9:6 and you skirt around that and say things such as how Isaiah did not say "the Father."  I told you that Jesus referred to Himself as one who would be the comforter, before he said that the Comforter is the Holy Ghost.

God is progressing with revelation through the entire Bible.  I never stated that revelation stopped at Malachi, as you erringly proposed.  I said that so far as God's nature, the revelation ceased.  The only revelation that is not contained in the Old Testament that is found in the New is the revelation of salvation.  And the very existence of the Son is only due to the need for man's salvation.

You claim things but never back them up.  There is that old circular reasoning at work in you again.  Show me where we read that the Son is eternal.  Show me where we read that God is three persons.

Since the Bible explicitly states that God is one, and since there is nothing stating anything more than that in the New Testament, but there is in fact a repetition of that, I stand on safe and solid ground when I state that your assertion of a trinity of persons is such a grand leap of assumption that only those who are brainwashed by trinitarianism cannot see it.

Since God is only referred to as ONE in the entire Bible, it is far more safe to believe that the references to the Son of God do not refer to an additional person aside from the eternal Father, but rather an additional manifestation of that one God, as 1 Tim 3:16 states.

Do you truly feel safe saying that God is three persons simply because we read that God was manifest in flesh?

The constant contrast between Son and Father always involves that of humanity versus deity, and never a personhood amidst the Godhead itself as you insist it does.  I have such contrasts explicitly stated in scripture.

1Tim 2:5  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

You said, "Yet God nowhere offers any explanation... 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. 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."

Since the Bible does not explicitly state that the distinction is persons nor manifestations, I continue to argue that it is far more reasonable and scripturally safe to say that it cannot be of persons, but is preferred to be manifestations, since the Bible does explicitly refer to God manifested in flesh in making reference to the Son.  And since the Bible does explicitly say that God is ONE, then we be consistent and say that three persons is too far out to accept.

The reason that God does not feel it necessary to explain Himself, and the disciples, themselves, who came across this manifestation of God as Son requested no explanation, since the Old Testament revelation of Himself, which was all that these disciples knew, was still in effect. As I said, if it were otherwise, we would read where the disciples demanded that Jesus explain this absolutely revolutionary new concept of three eternal persons, and do that for a very, very lengthy period of time, since it is so alien to the entire concept of the strict monotheism they adhered to until He came to them.  But the Bible is silent.

Honestly, after pointing that out, I cannot see how anyone can possibly not question the trinity doctrine.

Since the disciples were not ingrained with trinity as you are, their only assumption would have been that God is still absolutely one person.  Nothing has changed from the Old Testament revelation of that fact.  The only conclusion that they could come up with, that would explain why they did not demand Christ to explain a trinity doctrine to them, was that they easily saw how God was one person and manifested Himself in flesh as Christ.  That is right there in 1 Tim 3:16.  You have nothing as close to your trinity idea anywhere in scripture, as is this verse is to Oneness teaching.  Manifested explicitly tells us that Son of God was another manifestation.

You claim that our weakest argument is in telling you that trinity fails due to lack of explicit teaching.  As funny as that sounds, you continue to say this.  But you cannot see the reality of the picture.  One God is stressed throughout the entire Bible.  And yet you continue to throw the mother of all leaps of assumption when you say that God is three eternal persons.

You have no account of a relationship between Father and Son in eternity past or in Old Testament times.  It would seem as though the second person  was slighted during the entire period ot he Old Testament.  "You stay hidden, Son, for 4,000 years, until I beget you through a woman, although I am eternally begetting you as we speak."

Since trinity doctrine is so foundational a doctrine in your mind, then yes, God has to spell  it out in black and white for us.  God spelled out salvation in black and white for us, since salvation is a very foundational issue.  Can you imagine God not spelling salvation out for us in black and white?  You must be able to comprehend that, for as serious an issue as salvation is, you propose that trinity teaching is as well.  However the Bible continues to read that God is one.

The reason I demand that the Bible explicitly state trinity teachings, if trinity be true, is due to the degree of importance you place upon that doctrine.  You make it out as foundational.  Would God really take such a foundational concept about His own nature and lay such importance upon it to the degree that most trinitarians say that all oneness people are damned, and not even lay it out in black and white in the scriptures?  I am glad that God was in a good mood and thought not to play with us, as He did with His nature, when it came to His thoughts of  putting salvation in black and white.  Otherwise, according to your logic, such foundational truths as how to be saved would never have been explicitly written in the Bible.

If all you trinitarians simply stated that it does not matter whether you believe in trinity or not, so long as you understand properly how to be saved, then I would never attempt to argue that Trinity should be explicitly taught in scripture as much as salvation is explicitly taught.  But you folks have put so much emphasis upon Trinity teaching, that we non-trinitarians demand for you to regard this thought.

And you go right back into your argument saying, "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."  Colin, you claim to base your thoughts on scripture alone, and yet you repeatedly state that counting heads proves trinity.  I can only say you do not stress the importance of scripture as much as oneness people do.

You think it is odd to accuse you of assumption since so many have reasoned the same way.  I already told you that upon pain of death or banishment, adherence to trinity belief was demanded of the people for centuries.  People tend to fit into a mold after such coercion.

You claim that Trinity is not so different from the Old Testament, revealing your poor method of basing your Christian life on certain doctrine.   For the manner in which you propose that idea is based upon your circular reasoning again.  You say that the New Testament doctrine is the Old Testament in its full blaze of glory.  Yea.  So what?  I agree.  And then you build another straw man, named Mike Blume, and imply that I believe that New Testament teaching cannot be different than the old.  I never said that.  I said that there is not found anything additional in the New testament regarding God's nature that is not already found in the Old.

You claim that a trinity of God's nature is taught in the New Testament.  Prove it.  Please cease these circular statements.

You said, "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."

Colin, I really think you need to study what "circular reasoning" is, for you cannot know what it is after stating what you did.  My, my.  You really waffled there.  You made a circular statement in order to prove you were not being circular!

Listen to me carefully.  A circular statement is stating that you are right simply because you are right.  You do not prove you are right, but dodge the issue by simply implying that I have to believe you are right simply because you tell me that you are.

To say that trinity must be true simply because millions of believers arrived at that conclusion is ridiculous.  I do not mock your intelligence, but assume you simply did not realize what circular reasoning was when you said what you did.

You said "I am right because millions of others agree."

I already told you, and yo u agreed, that if God took the time and inspirational motivation upon the writers of the Bible to say everything that He is not, then the Bible would still be in progress towards completion to this day!  It is absolutely nonsense to say that unless the Bible explicitly says "God is not three persons" then my logic fails.  All that the Bible says is that He is one.  And we are to assume no more than that.  Do not assume He can be three persons, but yet One God.  Do not assume He is ten persons either, after reading about the seven spirits of God and the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  He is simply one.  Keep it that way.  Stay safe within the bounds of explicit scriptural revelation.

You say that we both used terms that are extra-scriptural.  And you include manifestation.  Colin, that is derivation of the root word "manifest".  And "Manifested" is directly and explicitly told to be the cause for the Son of God in 1 Tim 3:16.  You have nothing so close to explicit terms already used.  One might as well say that the Bible explicitly reads that the Son is a manifestation of God, since it said "God was manifest in the flesh..."

Incarnation is the same.  Incarnate literally means to manifest in flesh, and again 1 Tim 3:16 shines forth.  But where is anything in the Bible so similar in usage to the term "PERSONS" when speaking of Father and Son and Holy Ghost?

We explicitly read that Jesus is "THE ETERNAL FATHER".  We read where Jesus said He is Comforter.  And Comforter is the Holy Ghost.  These are all explicit.  Where is anything in the BIble in such close proximity to your doctrine as these are to my doctrine?

I insist that Oneness is far more in agreement with Scripture in its very use of terms than is Trinity doctrine.

You said, "Yet it (NT) never ONCE stops to clarify that these names/titles are simply MANIFESTATIONS/OFFICES/ROLES...nor does it say explicitly that they are Persons."

But the fact is that it does say God was manifested in flesh in 1 Tim 3:16.  Where does it say anything remotely similar using the trinity terms you rest upon?

We both must forego the expectation of explicit statements to a degree, but yet I continue to maintain Oneness terms are far more faithful to what is explicitly stated in scripture than are trinitarian terms.  So the weight rests on the Oneness side of the balance.

You say that "Person" and "manifest" are both used once in regards to the Godhead in the New Testament.  Yet you fail to notice that Oneness teaches the thought that Son of God is a manifestation of God, which is exactly what 1 Tim 3:16 is saying when using that term.  However, the single time that person is used to describe God, we both agree that God is a "person".  The argument is that you feel the Son is a "person" along with the "person" of the Father.  And if "person" was used in that sense to support your doctrine as perfectly as "manifest" is used to support oneness as per intended context of the pertinent verse in which "manifest" is found, then I could never argue against you.  But its not.  You said, "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."

Why?  And why do you always say the Father is implied?  It only says "GOD."  Why is not the Holy Ghost implied?  You believe the Holy Ghost is as much God as is the Father.  I agree that it is Father, but it is pertinent to ask you this question due to your doctrinal position of multiple persons.

Hebr 1:3  Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is simply saying that the Son is human and in human terms, fully expresses the Father to us.  That is why He is the Word made flesh. Words express a person.  But one's words are not other person's aside from that person who speaks those words.

EXPRESS IMAGE  -- GREEK: charakter {khar-ak-tare'} AV - express image 1; 1 1) the instrument used for engraving or carving 2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it 2a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

2b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

It is God manifesting Himself in flesh.   It is saying that the Son is the impression of the Father in fleshly form.  I am sure you can see that this term used refutes your thoughts, at least in using this verse to prove your theory.  The Son is the extension of the Father in the sense that He is the Father expressed to us in human, fleshly terms.  In other words, if God the Father was visible, He would appear as the Son of God appeared.  But He is not visible.  All His traits are expressed to us in the form of the "impression" we have of the Son of God.  This makes the Son an absolute expression and extension of the Father.  It makes the Father the real issue, and not merely one of three eternal persons.  It elevates the Father above the Son.  And that contradicts your doctrine that Son and Father are co-equal.

You claim that using the term "manifest in the flesh" to support oneness teaching is completely incorrect in grammatical terms.  You obviously do not understand Oneness.  Oneness teaches that the Son of God is simply the person of the Father expressed to us via humanity, for the purpose of providing us with a sinless kinsman redeemer.

And you say that there are no manifestations of God anywhere in scripture.  What would you call the pillar of fire in the Old Testament, in relation to the definition of manifest?  What would you call the hand that wrote on Belshazzar's wall?  Is it not grammatically and literally correct to say that these are manifestations of God?

I already addressed this issue but you claim that I miss the thought that in contrasting Father, Son and Spirit that personal terms are used.  I already told you that the title we give to grammatical terms, such as personal pronouns, do not revolve around the same concept of "persons" that your doctrine uses in speaking of God as three persons. Grammar has been created by man using references that are familiar to mankind, without thought as to basing them upon the truth of God's existence.  Since we are all individual persons, then we concocted a grammar for our language that involves terms such a personal pronouns. It is simply ridiculous to say that use of those terms to distinguish Father from Son demands that the Father and Son be eternally two "persons".  Colin, this really takes the cake!

I also said this before, but you never commented on it.  There is Bible language found in reference to a man speaking to his own soul.  To use your reasoning above, you must conclude that a man and his own soul are two "persons", for grammar demands this!

I am sure you now see the folly in using grammatical terms describing the position certain words hold in a sentence in order to determine doctrinal correction regarding the Godhead.

You said, "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. "

When I told other trinitarians that you folks use this very argument to prove trinity, they laughed and demanded that I tell them what trinitarian person claimed that.

The reason you say it is "natural" to conclude that God must be three persons based upon that scene in the Bible, is for the reason that you always limit God's abilities to those of human persons.  How many times have I repeated this one?  Since human persons cannot speak from heaven and simultaneously stand in water, while also falling upon themselves in the form of a dove, then you conclude that God cannot be one person since He did those very things at once.  Your huge error is lowering the glory of God to that of men.

Romans 1:22-23   Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

I propose that this is the proverbial camel of all camels that you swallow while straining at theological gnats.  Your colossal error is in not realizing that the person of deity is not limited to the singular personal capabilities of humankind.  Since God is God, then that throws out all possibility of comparing His person to our persons and our associative limitations to our personhood.

But you are correct in one thing.  It is far more "natural" to accept the idea of multiple persons when viewing this scene, because the natural mind cannot grasp the things of the Spirit, and compares everything to itself and its own carnal limits.  It cannot delve with faith beyond all that we can ask or think.   You list some statements that supposedly deny Oneness' position.  You state that the Father sent the Son, but fail to notice that this does not imply that the Son pre-exist the incarnation, since God sent John the Baptist also.

You say the eternal Word became flesh.  To this I agree, also!  Notice we never read the eternal Son became flesh. hmmm.....

You say Jesus became human, and that is the entire point of Oneness. But it does not say the Son became human. Hmmmm....

You say the Son was manifest, quoting 1 John 1:8, but fail to recall that we do not read about this manifestation traversing eternity past on into time.  That is like God sent His Son.  God also sent John the Baptist.  But who said that simply being sent by God demands that you exist before an incarnation?  The Son of God was not manifested to the people of Israel until well after the temptations in the wilderness.  Go back and read your definition of "manifest" again.

As you can see, none of these demand a pre-existent Son of God.

You claim that 2 John 3 says that the Father and Son are two different persons.  It does not!  It says no such thing! It simply contrasts the Father from Jesus Christ.  But it does not provide us with what form of contrast we are dealing with.  Oneness says one thing and you say another, but the verse does not explicitly say either of our positions.

You argue that my assertion of Trinity's folly in proposing an eternal son without an eternal mother is ridiculous.  You say that by telling me that my own argument favours your position when I previously told you that we cannot limit God's abilities with our own, as in the case of the baptism of Christ.  Colin, this is a completely different issue altogether.  You use the term "SON" when you say "eternal Son."  By the very definition of the word SON, your doctrine falls on its face.  The term Son demands the thought of both a Father and a mother in terms of relationship.  Son is a term of relationship.  To say that an eternal Father can have a Son is to say that this Father BIRTHED a Son like a woman would birth a child.  So we should not even use the term FATHER or SON, because the definition must totally be ignored.  This is not grammatical terms here, but actual definitions of words that lose all definition if you are correct.  And you cannot see that?

That is the reason that Adam Clarke and Walter Martin denied the eternal son doctrine.  This is not an issue of faculties and abilities, but an issue of the very definition of a word.  You might as well call Jesus an elephant as to call Him an eternal Son without an eternal mother, for the definition of words has no relevance in your theology.

If there was a word used to describe a person that did not by definition through relationship require the existence of a mother and father, then you could use it and be correct.  But to say eternal SON is completely absurd by virtue of the definition of the very word!

You said the Holy Spirit, and not the Father, overshadowed Mary.  Does not that make the Holy Spirit the Father of the flesh and bone Son?

You must be saying that the pre-existent Son has no need of a mother, though we should not even call Him a "Son" if that is the case, while the flesh and bone Son was fathered by the Holy Ghost.  Perhaps it is a surrogate situation?

But seriously, Gabriel stated in this very instance, as I have repeatedly pointed out, which you seem to avoid every time, that the reason Jesus was called "Son of God" was due to the fact that the Holy Ghost would overshadow Mary and she would birth a child.  That fits the definition of the word SON perfectly!  Gabriel sticks to the definitions we have placed upon terms, while you don't.  He has a viable Father and a viable mother and a viable birth.  That is precisely what the term Son should be associated with.  So who will I believe?  Gabriel or you? Will I believe that Gabriel was incorrect in saying that the entire reason the Son of God is called so was due to the  fact that there was a father in the form of the Holy Ghost and a mother in the form of Mary and a birth of a child?  Colin, this is the only statement in the entire Bible that claims reason for the existence of the term SON OF GOD. If you were correct, there should be at least one other verse somewhere else that states that Jesus is called Son of God because for all of eternity the eternal Father begat Him.  But such a statement or anything at least similar to it is not found anywhere in the entire Bible!

I agree that the Father-Son relationship is not similar to that of humans, but only in the sense that it was the same person in both cases!

I agree that Jesus is referred to as God and Lord.  But how does that prove an eternal Son?  All you have to give me is one verse that says "ETERNAL SON" in it.  Its not there, though.

You said nothing is said about the Son being a plan in God's mind.  Yes it is.  Look up the definition of LOGOS (WORD).    Oneness people are very careful about the definitions that are associated with words in the Bible.

And yes, He is also the creator of the universe.  Amen on that one!  But you say that the Son is a person apart from the Father who created all things.  So how do we come to understand that, in light of the verse that says that the Father created all things "by the Son"?  Would not we just say that the Son created all things.  Why do we read that the Father created by the Son?  It makes perfect sense when we realize that the WORD that was literally spoken was what God used to create.  That word became flesh.  It was an extended expression beyond what sound waves could ever be.  And in light of the words of Romans 5, we understand also that God had the yet-future Son of God in mind when He created Adam.

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

The person is eternal, yes.  But not His Sonship.

And I cannot see eternality of the Son in scripture because it is not there.  I see the eternality of the person of the Son which is the same person of the Father, which person only later in time manifested in flesh as Son by virtue of His birth from an actual mother and begetting by an actual Father.

I trust that this addresses your rebuttal adequately.  Thanks for your submission, and I look forward to your next rebuttal.  I know this takes time for both of us, and I thank you for that.