Hi, Mike,
Thanks for your response.
As I sought to explain in my letter, I chose to temporarily set aside a strict Scriptural debate in order to address some foundational issues in our exchange. If one is misled in at the foundation of his understanding, then he will continue to produce skewed interpretations of Scripture. This happens often with the cults. When one sits down with a Mormon, Scriptures that are clear to the true believer are convoluted to the Mormon. I see the same in you. I am not calling you a cult (although many have referred to the UPC in this manner), but simply observing that you look many verses in the eye and deny their true meaning. I imagine you will feel the same way about me. I felt the need to depart from bickering over specific verses and at least try to address the overall picture. I want your readers to have a better understanding of where I'm coming from when I present my view on Scriptures. While it may be true that many Trinitarians are so because they are taught this doctrine, I suspect the same is true for many Oneness adherents. In this exchange, I will briefly respond to your various responses. I think your readers will be able to make their own judgment based on these limited exchanges.
Before I dive in, I'd like to suggest two things. We both have issued challenges to each other on specific points, and sometimes both of us either forget to respond or skirt the issue. If either of us issues a specific challenge, let's be diligent to give a clear response. Also, I feel as if I have been driving the discussion lately. In your next response, why don't you bring some issues to the table? Not that you haven't already, but perhaps you can give me some specific verses to respond to, issues to address, etc. Of course feel free to respond to my response, but also feel the freedom to set the agenda for the next exchange.
HISTORY
In your response, you wrote,
"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."
Mike, you have much to say about my argumentation. Much of what you say is true...but only because you misunderstand or misrepresent me in what you say. I never said that the mass of true believers who affirm Trinitarian doctrine places it as truth. I simply said that since YOU brought up the subject, it merits a "second look" at Trinitarianism, as most Christians affirm the doctrine. I absolutely agree that the masses can be wrong. But it's highly unlikely. It just seems an odd statement to say that the Oneness position is strengthened when the minority of "Christians" affirm it. Remember, you brought up history, not me! And don't compare apples and oranges in bringing up Matt 7; this passage addresses the saved and unsaved.
You said, "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." I never said the martyrdom of Trinitarians proves Trinitarianism. Again, I am not using history to prove my doctrine. I am simply exposing your folly of trying to do the same. You quickly backpedal and say that your references to history were outweighed by your references to Scripture. While that may be true, What you implied in your references is that whenever my interpretation was contrary to yours... well, I was simply brainwashed by the church fathers...who were brainwashed by Plato, etc., etc. I will again challenge you to show me ANYTHING in ANY Counsel (etc.) that smacks of Plato or his cohorts. I have a love for Puritan literature. Go to their writings and try find anything beyond straight Scripture as they establish their doctrines. Since you cannot debunk their theology, you seek to attack their motives or "indoctrination". To use a familiar quote, "will you likewise fail this this time, as well, Mike?!"
** Challenge **
You repeatedly assert that the Church Fathers were "poisoned" by Plato and others. This is one of your explanations as to why so many adhere to Trinitarianism - the early church fathers were simply clouded in their thinking and in turn contaminated church thought throughout the centuries. Now here's my request. Please show how this is borne out in my arguments or in any of the Puritan era (or after) doctrinal statements. If what you are saying is true, than it must be fairly easy to detect. You should be able to point out blatant misinterpretations of Scripture based on your accusation. If not, you ought to drop it from your line of argumentation altogether.
By the way, I'm not aware of many JW martyrs. But even Muslims and athiests die for what they believe. This does not make their ideology/theology right. I do understand your point about circular reasoning. But I was referring to the Trinitarian believers such as Goodwin, Owen, Spurgeon, etc., whom I doubt you'd place outside the circle of true believers. If you do, I don't even want to hear about it!
I Tim 3:16
That you continue to let this verse "shine forth" for you shows the lengths you must go to to support your doctrine. This verse simply does not support your doctrine. It merely says that God was manifest in the flesh (others say "appeared in a body" or "revealed in flesh"). How does this prove Oneness? It nowhere calls the Son a manifestation of God, nor does it reveal God the Father or the Holy Spirit in the same matter. It simply says that God was manifest in the flesh. You and I both believe that. I believe that the eternal Son, who is God (Heb 1:8) was manifest in the flesh. You believe that the one indivisible God was manifest, and this manifestation was called the Son. It does not explicitly state either belief. Against each other, neither of our doctrines are established or threatened by this verse. Please hear me. I can only again refer you to I John 3:8. You say that God being manifested in the flesh assumes His preexistence. Yet when the EXACT same thing is said of the Son, you quickly back peddle and say it means something different. Why? Because you've been conditioned to believe certain things when you read them in Scripture.
Heb 1:1-3
Not much comment is needed on your commentary. I fully expected you to give the explanation that you did. I can only trust your readers will see the sheer folly of your "exegesis". I hear you say that the Father/Son relationship is centered around the incarnation, the physical and spiritual. Yet you do not draw a clear line between the two. Is the Son simply the human nature of Jesus Christ, and the Father God in Him? I am still confused as to how you explain and distinguish the two! You say, "...It [Heb 1:1-3] is saying that the Son is the impression of the Father in fleshly form."
Mike, this passage simply does not say that - not even close! Rather, it is your theology that dictates that it MUST say that. Clear passages are clear until Oneness teachers get their hands on them. If the Son is merely the "impression of the Father in fleshly form", just how did He create the worlds? I thought He didn't exist then?! And how is He the brightness of His glory?! So the Son is the impression of the Father in fleshly form, eh? Perhaps Paul was confused when he wrote that the Son created the world in Colossians 1? The two are clearly distinguished..are you saying God in the Son is the brightness of His OWN glory? Come, now! And Who is it that upholds all things by the Word of His OWN power? I suppose you'd answer that it is God who is in the Son who upholds all things, created all things, etc. You lose all sense of what that passage is saying when you force this interpretation. You desecrate the eternal majesty and dignity of the Son by "stripping" Him of that which God the Father testifies concerning Him. If God is not the author of confusion, why then did God not simply state your gracious interpretation? That would have been most beneficial and would have saved centuries of confusion! And just Who is God talking to when He calls the Son God? Himself? Respectfully, my friend, that is beyond strange.
Perhaps an amplified rendering of this text according to my understanding of your position would help your audience see the monstrosities that you are proposing...
"...whom He appointed heir of all things [although the Son himself is a created being], and through whom he made the worlds [He didn't really do this; it was in God's mind, as the Son didn't even exist then. The Son does not have the power to create anyway]; Who being the brightness of His Glory [although he has none in and of himself] and the express image of his person [actually, not really...he's just the impression of the Father in fleshly form...and "person" doesn't mean "person", it means "manifestation"] and upholding all things by the word of his power [don't get confused, he has no power; he's a created being and therefore did not really create anything...his creative prerogative and power are imaginary, not real]...But unto the Son He sayeth "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever...[not really. He isn't really God, God is just in Him. If He were God, then He'd be eternal, and that can't be!]...Thou, Lord, in the beginning, didst lay the foundation of the earth...[again, false alert. Be careful to interpret this correctly. It doesn't mean what it says. The son created nothing. Even though God the Father says he did, he didn't. He didn't exist then.]."
Perhaps a bit too much satire, but you get the point. I don't mean to poke fun at you or your beliefs, as I know you hold them sincerely. I just want you to see how little sense there is in what you bring to the table.
OT/NT Revelation
Mike, I won't beat this too much longer. What is very clear in our exchange is that you and I hold a radically different approach to interpreting Scripture. You contend that the Trinity is too far a departure from OT teaching. Old Testament teaching of the Godhead is negated by the New Testament revelation (if Trinitarianism is correct). I say one should take the Bible as a whole and see how God reveals Himself. The Bible was never meant to be chopped up; it is God's entire revelation of Himself. It is foolish to hasten to a conclusion with only "half" the revelation, particularly Old Covenant revelation. Of course God would never contradict Himself. Trinitarianism upholds monotheism - ONE GOD. If our teaching CONTRADICTED explicit OT teaching, then we're sunk. But it doesn't. The New Testament simply offers a deeper understanding of the essence of the one true GOD...regardless of the beliefs of unregenerate Jews!
Mike, perhaps I could state it differently. Accept ALL of God's revelation, and THEN make your conclusions. Or, accept a part of it and interpret the latter by the former. If you say it's too much of a change to reveal Himself as Persons, I also add it would have been an ENORMOUS jump even to reveal Himself as MANIFESTATIONS. You have yet to give me one explicit (or even clear) verse where God says "Relax, these are just manifestations". I again challenge you to provide me this information. Thus far, you've given me nothing. Even if I Tim 3:16 supported your position - and it doesn't - it only vaguely touches on the subject. What amazes me is that it is Oneness teachers who seek to debunk Trinitarianism based on lack of explicit statements in Scripture...yet the same is found in Oneness proponents.
*** Challenge ***
You continue, along with other Oneness teachers, to stress the lack of explicit statements regarding multiple "Persons" in the Godhead. Yet you seem to admit that even your position isn't as clear as it could be. Would you provide me with ONE explicit statement - or even something close - where God explains the usage of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as "manifestations, offices, mere titles, etc."? Any passage will do, just something where you can substantiate YOUR claims that these Names are not "Persons".
Eternal Son
I don't know how much clearer Scripture could be on this. Your perpetual search for explicit statements is your own downfall. You have endeavored to show me my monstrous pitfalls as a Trinitarian. I respectfully point out to you that is is one of yours. God simply doesn't give us many of the explicit statements you so desperately desire. Nowhere does God use the word Trinity. Likewise, you'll never find the term incarnation. Yet you only accept one of those terms, and I accept both. Nowhere does God use the term eternal Son. Nor, of course, does He ever state that the Son is a manifestation. You seem quite willing to point out the lack of explicit statements concerning Trinitarianism yet seem quite content to remain blind to the absolute lack of clarity regarding your own doctrine. You are reduced to saying ** 7**. As neither of us can claim explicit statements, we must rely on seeing how God's Word fits together as a whole. You may (falsely) assert that it's easier for you to do this than me, but when you seek to shoot down Trinitarianism by these measures, you bring down your own ship, as well.
Mike, God doesn't use the term "eternal Son" because He doesn't need to. Please, please, please, listen to what I'm saying below and give it honest consideration...
1) The Son is referred to as God, Heb 1:8, 10. If the Son is God, then He is eternal.
This is not a complicated argument. When deity is ascribed to the Son, I don't think it's a stretch to say He is the eternal Son. I would also call Him the Almighty Son, the Omniscient Son, etc. What is given as an explicit statement, you must quickly brush under the carpet and "reinterpret", thus stripping the Son of His eternal majesty. What a travesty! You say that His eternal majesty is really God the Father in Him (am I right?). God the Father says that the Son upholds all things by the word of HIS power, not the Father's. It's interesting to cross reference your interpretation of John 1 with the truth that the Son upholds all things by HIS powerful WORD! I again remind you that you confound the plain meaning of text after text because if they mean what they say you know you're in error.
2) Melchisedec served as a type of the Son; "without father, without mother,without descent, having neither BEGINNING OF DAYS, nor end of life..." (Heb 7:3).
There is no human equivalent to God the Father's relationship with His Son. So the Bible gives us the best glimpse we'll get. Melchisedec simply "appears" in the Biblical account. He was no doubt an ordinary man. But we are given no record of His genealogy or background. It would appear that he appeared from nowhere. In that way, He was made "like unto the Son of God". Jesus Christ, the Word of God (I John 1:3) enjoyed fellowship with God in the beginning (John 1:1). God sent His Son into the world, and the Son was manifest (I John 3:8) to us. That is, "God was manifest in the flesh" (I Tim 3:16); or, if you like, "Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh (II John 7). This is the closest example of the Son we are given. Jesus, the Son of God, has no beginning of days. While you balk at the lack of explicit statements saying the Son is eternal, I must point out that it nowhere says He had a beginning. He did not all of sudden come into being, He was "manifested" (I John 3:8). He participated in the creation of the world, therefore He preceded His incarnation. He enjoyed [lit.] "face to face fellowship" with God (John 1:1) before His birth in Bethlehem. Psalm 2:11,12 make clear reference to the Son in OT times.
3) The Son created all things, and was before all things, Colossians 1:16 - 18.
Mike, you overlooked my request for you to address this passage. You discard John 1 because it doesn't use the word "Son". Please pay close attention to this passage. It explicitly states that the SON was before all things (vs. 17). This is why I say the phrase "eternal Son" is not necessary - He already says it in as many words. The Son is the creator (vs. 16). Note that not only did He create all things, but He upholds all things by His OWN power (vs.17). Additionally, creation was FOR the Son, for His own pleasure (vs. 16). Not that you can't read this for yourself, but note that His dominion is not only over creation but over kingdoms. Pharaoh rose to power under the dominion of the SON. Mike, it is dumbfoundingly clear that things attributed only to God are plainly attributed to the Son. I was disappointed that you did not address this passage in your previous response. Please don't disappoint me again, Mike.
Before I leave this passage, you brought up a question about why in Hebrews 1 it says that God created the worlds BY or THROUGH the Son. This is of no concern to me whatsoever. In the mystery of the Godhead, each was involved in creation, because the one true God created all that we see. In Job it says that the Spirit created all things. In Colossians it says that the Son created all things. There are of course many passages that say God the Father created all things. This must create a bit of a quandary for you as "manifestations" are supposed to emphasize the different operations of God (I thought). Likewise, you say the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier of the church...yet Jesus said the Father sanctifies us (John 17); how do you explain this? I am not poking fun, I really want to know!
OBJECTIONS...
"An eternal Son requires an eternal Mother"
I really am surprised that you perpetuate this silly argument. Jesus' relation with God the Father is unlike any earthly relationship. I am using YOUR logic here, Mike. God is above our relations and not confined to them. For a human child to be born, naturally a mother is necessary. But for Jesus to be God's Son, no mother is required! It is a spiritual, not physical (earthly)relationship. And whether the relation is eternal (as I propose) or temporal (as you propose), this does not affect whether or not a mother is needed. Though the argument itself is baseless, coming from you it makes no sense at all. I am employing for you the same argumentation that you utilize with Jesus' baptism.
Luke 1:35
You are trying to have this verse say more than it actually does (as usual). Jesus, the Son, did not come into existence at his incarnation. You will NEVER find a verse that states the origin of the Son. Never. Rather, you read that God sent His Son (John 3:16) and therefore the Son was manifest (I John 3:8). To say that God was manifest and that the Son was manifest are synonymous phrases. Scripture treats them the same. In fact, the Scripture also says that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. For you, this poses problems. All this only confirms what I teach...Jesus Christ is the Name of the Son of God, who is eternal. Back to Luke 1:35...The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. It was the Holy Spirit Who physically planted the seed in Mary's womb, but He is not His Father (and you have yet to yield an explicit statement stating otherwise!). Mary was the mother of Jesus, but you know that Scripture is clear to make the distinction of His physical and spiritual descent (cf Heb 7:3). To help you better understand what I am saying, note that the verse does NOT say that He shall BECOME the Son of the Most High. This is what you would want it to say. Rather, it simply says that He shall for this purpose be CALLED the Son. Big difference! Jesus' relation with God the Father is eternal. This is evidenced by the fact that the Holy Spirit implanted Him in Mary's womb. But nowhere does Scripture call the Holy Spirit Jesus' Father. What you are saying makes complete sense from a Oneness slant, but not from a Scriptural view. You are again confusing that which is eternal or spiritual with that which is temporal. This passage really shows the Triune God perfecting the incarnation of God, of the Son Jesus Christ. Another example of the Triune God manifesting Himself in similar fashion is at Calvary. The Son willingly offered Himself to God the Father through the Holy Spirit (Heb 9:14).
The Holy Spirit
Mike, I understand your need to explain the Father and Son in terms of the incarnation. But why the Holy Spirit? It is said that He sanctifies (John 17:17). When did He/It become a manifestation? The Holy Spirit is said to be eternal (Heb 9:14), which means He had no beginning. Please explain.
Isaiah 9:6
Mike, you claim that Is 9:6 says Jesus is the God the Father. The fact that this assertion is wholly unsupported in the rest of Scripture does not seem to concern you in the least. The fact is, the only explicit statement you'll find concerning Jesus Christ is that He is the Son (I John 1:3). I defy you to prove me otherwise. You will nowhere find any explicit statement saying the Father is Jesus or the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Prove me wrong, Mike.
Let's look closer at Isaiah 9:6, as you hold it as a trump card. It says that the son given will be called, amongst other things, "eternal father". Is His actual name eternal father? No. He is never addressed as "eternal father", as He is never addressed or referred to as "Prince of Peace" or "Counsellor" - these are, rather, titles or attributes. His name is not literally "almighty God"; this is simply stating that fact that this is Who He is!
The key to understanding this phrase is to ask this question: "To whom is Jesus a father?" Or, "To whom is the Son a Father?" I will admit that in all that you've presented thus far this verse stumped me the most. Although I could see no connection elsewhere in Scripture, I was baffled as to why the SON would be called FATHER. I came across a piece that did help me immensely. Charles Spurgeon years ago wrote a little pamphlet addressing this very verse. He correctly understood that the objects (or subjects) of His fatherhood is US, the REDEEMED. His fatherhood has nothing to do with His relation with God the Father, nor is it saying that He IS God the Father. Understand that Jesus is a father to us, but to God the Father He is a Son. This phrase has to do with His relation to BELIEVERS, not GOD the Father. Jesus is the Son of GOD, yet the Father of BELIEVERS. You are misunderstanding this verse to be referring to His relation to God. Understood correctly, there is no "problem" with this verse. I am a son to my father, yet a father to my children. In different contexts, I can be referred to as a son or a father. The same is true of the Son, Jesus Christ. God opened my eyes to this as I was recently reading through Hebrews. Hebrews 2:13 brilliantly brings all of this out in one sentence: ..."Behold I and the children which God hath given me". Who is speaking? Jesus. Who are His children? The redeemed, the church (people). Who gave them to Him? God the Father (John 6:37). So, in one verse, Jesus is both a Son (to God the Father) and a father (to the redeemed). Yet another example of the divine "Persons" "sharing" roles. Of course, God the Father is also called my father, for through the Spirit I can cry "Abba, Father". I am truly grateful to the Lord for giving me deeper insight into this verse.
Let's look at our two interpretations...
I say that the Son, Jesus, is called the eternal Father because He is the father of all believers. God (the Father) gave believers to Jesus, the Son. We are therefore His children. Adam was the federal head - the "father" - of the human race. Likewise, Jesus is the federal head, or the Father, of the redeemed (Romans 5). Notice that Jesus is called our FATHER (a role) while still being distinguished from GOD THE FATHER (a proper Name). One of the many facets of His position of Redeemer is that He is our father. But He is not God the Father; one is a title/description and the other is a proper Name. If you understand this dichotomy, you will begin to understand why you have so much trouble trying to prove form the NT that Jesus is God the Father.
You say that this must mean that Jesus is God the Father. First off, note that an "eternal Father" in this context demands an "eternal Son". I doubt you're willing to go there. If you say no, please explain why not. If this is a name/manifestation of Jesus, then why does it not also say that He shall be called "Holy Spirit" or "Son of God"? What a strange omission! Why only one and not all three? And why does it not say "God the Father", instead of eternal Father. "Eternal Father" is never used in the NT, to my knowledge. If it is referring to God the Father, why is a proper name included in a list of attributes? Basically, Mike, this verse simply does not say what you want it to say. I again challenge you to present me one verse where Jesus is EXPLICITY stated to be God the Father or the Holy Ghost. I don't want a passage that requires your long, convoluted interpretation to establish your case. If what you believe is true, these statements should ABOUND in the NT. Why? Because there are so MANY passages that unmistakably refer to Jesus as the SON. Alas, you will never be able to present a single Scripture that links the two. Never.
John 1
Mike, it is truly sad to read your confused presentation of John 1. God has given us a very clear and simple presentation on the truth of the Godhead. Does He use the word Trinity? No. Does He use the word "Persons"? No. There simply isn't any terminology in our languages that adequately describes the magnificence and full essence of our God. Yet plainly, He states that the Word was distinct from God yet is God. This is quintessential Trinitarian theology! That John had the Son in mind is abundantly clear from I John. It was the Word that was manifest. Let's review the facts. John says the following...1) The Word was WITH God 2) He IS God 3) So the two are not confused, He reminds us that again that He is distinct from God 4) The Word, who is separate from God, is the creator of all things (only God can do that!) 5) The Word became flesh and lived with us 6) We beheld HIS (own) Glory. This prologue is so beautiful and simple, yet Oneness teachers desecrate it!
You propose that we read it thus: "The Son was with the Father...". Because that does not read as we would like, you celebrate. That is yet another straw man argument from your corner. You prove nothing because you establish nothing. Where is there any mention of God the Father and the Son? Though it is referring to them, John is writing from another angle. You ought to read what is plainly implied..."God" and "Jesus" (cf. I John 3:8, II John 7). This passages is not meant to primarily establish the Father - Son relationship; hence no mention is made of it. Rather, he is simply presenting Jesus Christ for Who He is...God. If you read John I in this way, you find no contradiction. "In the beginning was JESUS, and JESUS was with God, and JESUS was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by JESUS, and apart from Him nothing was made that was made..." Jesus Christ is of course the Son (not the Father nor Holy Spirit). Being God, He Himself existed with God, and enjoyed face to face fellowship with God. Your error is substituting a relational term for a proper name. The absurd position that the Word was merely a thought or plan in God's mind has no Scriptural support whatsoever. It is dreamed up and "supported" by weak cross references (i.e., "lamb slain from the foundation of the world", "chosen in Him from the foundation of the world", etc.). Paul and the author of Hebrews present the same truths but emphasize the Father/Son relationship. In the prior passages, Jesus, the Son, is plainly presented as God (Colosians 1 and Hebrews 1). If "Word" merely means a "thought or plan" in God's mind, or even His spoken Word, then what do you make of Heb 1:3? Being Creator God, just how does the Son uphold all things by the Word of HIS POWER?! Is it the word of the Word...who doesn't' really exist anyhow?!
To summarize, Mike, please address the following for your readers...
1) The statements in Colossians 1 that the Son created all things for Himself.
2) When was the Holy Spirit first referenced as such, as He is eternal (Heb 9:14). What is the purpose or this "manifestation" if the Incarnation did not necessitate "it" and God the Father sanctifies us.
3) Please show one instance in Puritan doctrinal creeds that smack of Plato. In other words, show me the fruit of your argument that Trinitarians have been led astray by others. The quote you gave me doesn't really prove much, as I can't verify it and you don't show how it directly affects Trinitarianism.
4) Please present just one verse that explicitly states that the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mere manifestations. Furthermore, give me just one verse that in the same way states explicitly that the Holy Spirit or God the Father is Jesus. State once more for your readers why Jesus is the Father when He is so clearly distinguished from Him (i.e., II John 3).