 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Trinity/Oneness similarities (L) |
Resident Skeptic |
This might surprise you.....
A MODERN DAY WITNESS TO THE LOGOS DOCTRINE
A very interesting discussion concerning the Word (Logos)appears in Dr. E.W. Bullinger's previously cited "Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament."
The doctrine Dr. Bullinger brings forth, although he is an ardent Trinitarian, is almost word-for-word the Oneness position on Christ as the Word, or Angel of God. Here is what he says:
| Quote: | "The Godhead is 'Spirit' (john 4:24) and as Spirit has no likeness to matter, God Himself took some creature form, (not human) before He created anything, in order that creation might have a mediator, or a means of communion with Deity. Hence, Christ is said to have been, 'In the Beginning' (John 1:1); 'before all things' (Co. 1:17); 'The Firstborn of every Creature' (Col. 1:15); 'The Beginning of the Creation of God' (Rev. 3:14); and hence, "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9).
"Elohim, therefore, is the Logos or Word, who took creaturehood, to create, (as afterwards took humanity, to redeem). As such He is the Father's 'Servant,' 'Angel,' or 'Messenger.' (Elohim denotes His being set apart to the office with an oath; Messiah or Christ, His anointing to the work of redemption; Angel or Messenger, referring to his actual dispatch; Servant, with reference to the service actually to be done). He appeared to Adam and the Patriarchs, (Gen. 17, 17, 18, 21, 22, 32; Ex. 3, 6; Joshua 5:13-15 with Ex. 23:23; Judges 13, etc., etc.) This view only makes permanent that which most commentators assume as being only temporary.
"His mission in connection with creation was to manifest Deity to His creatures, (Prov. 8:22-31). His work was begun with Adam (made in His likeness and image), but the Fall interrupted the mission, and it was necessarily suspended. Then 'the Word was made flesh' (John 1:14) in order that He might redeem creation from the curse. Made flesh in order that He might suffer and die (See Heb. 10:5, Ps 40:6; Isa. 42:40, Philip. 2:7)." (Bullinger, p. 896-897).
Oneness theologians could find no argument with this marvelous discussion from the pen of a well known and well respected Trinitarian Bible expositor and author. |
This portion from the same book is also informative....
WHY IS THE PRE-EXISTENT CHRIST CALLED "SON"?
There are some passages, very few, that refer to the Old Testament Word of God as "Son." One such example is in Hebrews 1:2, which talks of the worlds being created "by the Son." How can this be, if the Son did not exist until the "Word was made flesh" at Bethlehem? The answer is very simple. In these instances the Bible writers are simply talking about the one who would later (at Bethlehem) be known as Son. They do not mean he was Son at that time. They are projecting His birth-acquired title back through time. This is a common practice, even in today's speech.
I once saw a film where the narrator said: "This is the cabin where President Lincoln was born." Was he "President" at the time of his birth in that humble cabin? Of course not. But he who would become President, had been born there. In the same way we hear of the High School that President Nixon attended and the football field President Reagan played on. Were they President at the time? Certainly not. They did not become President till long after their High School and football days. The speaker is merely using a title they acquired later in life to more fully describe them. He is projecting a title back in time. So when we hear of the world being created "by the Son" we understand it is the Word that is being referred to and not a pre-existent human being. In other words, he that would later be known as the Son, created the worlds. But he did not do it as "Son". He was the Word at that time. His Sonship acquired title (Son) is being projected back.
Even Trinitarians admit this is so:
| Quote: |
"It is not unusual for Scripture to denominate appellations which do not, in a strictly literal sense, appertain to the entire range of age-times under consideration in the respective contexts. An obvious example occurs in the words of the Son of God to his grumbling disciples... 'What then if you should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before' (John 6:61-61 NASB). It is pre-incarnate conditions, although such in prospect according to divine counsels" (Ronald F. Hogan, The Gory of God, p. 72). |
http://web.archive.org/web/20041016002949/http://www.mikeblume.com:80/drysd15a.htm#A CHALLENGE TO ONENESS
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
5/19/17 7:30 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
BUMP
Will Brother James respond? If he does respond, will he actually have read it before he does?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
8/5/17 12:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| I'm not really interested in a debate with you |
brotherjames |
I Have too much to do And you aren't going to change And neither am I, so why bother. But for the sake of some on here who might be tempted to side with your error out of ignorance here is an answer from someone else who is a trinitarian apologist
Tortured Exegesis vs. the Presupposition of Pre-existence
A doctrine like “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” may seem like a mouthful, or an advanced, abstract theological topic. As such, it may seem a weak and speculative thing to use as an excuse to refuse Christian fellowship to a group. But in fact the idea contained in “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” is quite simple, and is surely the unspoken presupposition which Bible-believing Christians have always had in mind when reading Scripture.
When a theologically untrained Christian reads at the opening of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, and all things came into being through Him…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”, what is he likely to think except that some person called the Word was always God with God and then became incarnate? He would be right to think so, because he would be instinctively making the same adjustment to his monotheism that the apostles and church fathers made in light of the revelation of Christ as God. Oneness believers, having rejected the obvious inference of the eternity of the Son, must work harder with this verse, taking it to mean something like “God always had a plan to become incarnate, since the beginning when he created, and finally he carried out that plan.”
But notice what happens when the eternal Son (the Word who was God) is juggled away: God’s plan to become flesh (his “word” or logos) must now be the thing that John is calling “that which was with God, and was God.” Would we really want to affirm that God’s plan to become flesh is itself God? In John’s teaching, there must be something or someone that “was with God, and was God” in the beginning. For trinitarian Christians, that something or someone is Jesus the eternal Word, about whose incarnate ministry the rest of John’s Gospel tells.
Pre-existence is also the best way to make sense of the famous passage in Philippians 2, in which Paul exhorts his readers to “have this mind in yourself which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not grasp equality with Him, but made Himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant…” It certainly seems that before the incarnation, somebody who already existed made a decision to take on the form of a servant. Similarly, in Galatians Paul says that “when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman.” Apparently God had a Son to send forth. For Oneness Pentecostals this verse must come to mean, “When the fullness of time had come, God became human, and then as God-become-human he maintained an interpersonal relationship with himself which had not previously existed.” |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
8/5/17 1:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I'm not really interested in a debate with you |
Resident Skeptic |
| brotherjames wrote: | I Have too much to do And you aren't going to change And neither am I, so why bother. But for the sake of some on here who might be tempted to side with your error out of ignorance here is an answer from someone else who is a trinitarian apologist
Tortured Exegesis vs. the Presupposition of Pre-existence
A doctrine like “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” may seem like a mouthful, or an advanced, abstract theological topic. As such, it may seem a weak and speculative thing to use as an excuse to refuse Christian fellowship to a group. But in fact the idea contained in “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” is quite simple, and is surely the unspoken presupposition which Bible-believing Christians have always had in mind when reading Scripture.
When a theologically untrained Christian reads at the opening of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, and all things came into being through Him…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”, what is he likely to think except that some person called the Word was always God with God and then became incarnate? He would be right to think so, because he would be instinctively making the same adjustment to his monotheism that the apostles and church fathers made in light of the revelation of Christ as God. Oneness believers, having rejected the obvious inference of the eternity of the Son, must work harder with this verse, taking it to mean something like “God always had a plan to become incarnate, since the beginning when he created, and finally he carried out that plan.”
But notice what happens when the eternal Son (the Word who was God) is juggled away: God’s plan to become flesh (his “word” or logos) must now be the thing that John is calling “that which was with God, and was God.” Would we really want to affirm that God’s plan to become flesh is itself God? In John’s teaching, there must be something or someone that “was with God, and was God” in the beginning. For trinitarian Christians, that something or someone is Jesus the eternal Word, about whose incarnate ministry the rest of John’s Gospel tells.
Pre-existence is also the best way to make sense of the famous passage in Philippians 2, in which Paul exhorts his readers to “have this mind in yourself which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not grasp equality with Him, but made Himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant…” It certainly seems that before the incarnation, somebody who already existed made a decision to take on the form of a servant. Similarly, in Galatians Paul says that “when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman.” Apparently God had a Son to send forth. For Oneness Pentecostals this verse must come to mean, “When the fullness of time had come, God became human, and then as God-become-human he maintained an interpersonal relationship with himself which had not previously existed.” |
Again, you did not give me the courtesy of reading what I posted. What you fail to realize is that what I posted was written by TRINITARIANS.
I'm not looking for a debate either. I'm simply pointing out that the Oneness doctrine is indeed Trinitarian, whether you or die-hard Oneness adherents like it or not.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
8/5/17 1:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| I read it and |
brotherjames |
| just because you found a so-called Trinitarian who is also in error doesn't mean your initial premise (that Oneness is actually trinitarian) is correct. What I posted refutes his ideas (written by a Trinitarian also) and correctly states the truth of the heresy of your position. THe slippery slope is that while you make Oneness theology out as just another way to express the Trinity it IS NOT! THis is as Jimmy Swaggert (your friend) would say, "A damnable doctrine", that will lead people to hell. Are Oneness people Christian? Can they be saved if their concept of Jesus, is in such error? Many say no. I am not your judge but this is total nonsense couched in $100 words but still nonsense and I wouldn't put my trust in it at all. There is a reason Oneness churches are a fringe group. I don't think you are any better than a Jehovah's Witness nor a Mormon. Your theology about Jesus isn't any better than theirs and we call them cults. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
8/5/17 2:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I read it and |
Resident Skeptic |
| brotherjames wrote: | | just because you found a so-called Trinitarian who is also in error doesn't mean your initial premise (that Oneness is actually trinitarian) is correct. What I posted refutes his ideas (written by a Trinitarian also) and correctly states the truth of the heresy of your position. THe slippery slope is that while you make Oneness theology out as just another way to express the Trinity it IS NOT! THis is as Jimmy Swaggert (your friend) would say, "A damnable doctrine", that will lead people to hell. Are Oneness people Christian? Can they be saved if their concept of Jesus, is in such error? Many say no. I am not your judge but this is total nonsense couched in $100 words but still nonsense and I wouldn't put my trust in it at all. There is a reason Oneness churches are a fringe group. I don't think you are any better than a Jehovah's Witness nor a Mormon. Your theology about Jesus isn't any better than theirs and we call them cults. |
Jimmy Swaggart does not believe in Eternal Sonship either. Are you making a belief in Eternal Sonship a requirement for salvation? Are Trinitarians who don't believe in Eternal Sonship no better than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? Or are you simply arguing for argument's sake? How many JW's or Mormons believe in the deity of Christ, or that the God exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Your unscholarly approach to this topic is laughable.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
8/5/17 2:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| You can laugh all you want |
brotherjames |
| but I guarantee you Eternal Sonship - the Pre-existent Son -(The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God) is a main concept of Trinitarianism (try the Nicene Creed for example). And, if JW doesn't believe in it then that's another good reason to keep him out of the AG. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 935
8/5/17 3:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: You can laugh all you want |
Resident Skeptic |
| brotherjames wrote: | | but I guarantee you Eternal Sonship - the Pre-existent Son -(The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God) is a main concept of Trinitarianism (try the Nicene Creed for example). And, if JW doesn't believe in it then that's another good reason to keep him out of the AG. |
You have shared your opinion. That's great. But you did not have the courage to answer the questions I posed to you in my last post. Thankfully, God is bigger than both of us and chooses to fill with his Spirit those of both persuasions. That is something that seems to elude your reasoning abilities.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
8/5/17 3:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
SouthGeorgiaBoy |
| I may not agree with some of the doctrine of the UPC but the one thing that I appreciate about them is that they have remained true to the Pentecostal experience and dressing in a way that is modest. As their churches have grown they have not abandoned principles and convictions to reach their communities and cities and they are reaching them. We are told that we cannot reach the millennials with our style or worship yet the UPC have large numbers of sharp young men and women. They have some of the largest and fastest growing churches in the US. They have cutting edge music and they dress up when they go to church. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1037
8/8/17 9:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| SouthGeorgiaBoy wrote: | | I may not agree with some of the doctrine of the UPC but the one thing that I appreciate about them is that they have remained true to the Pentecostal experience and dressing in a way that is modest. As their churches have grown they have not abandoned principles and convictions to reach their communities and cities and they are reaching them. We are told that we cannot reach the millennials with our style or worship yet the UPC have large numbers of sharp young men and women. They have some of the largest and fastest growing churches in the US. They have cutting edge music and they dress up when they go to church. |
There were 35,000 at their nation youth convention a couple of weeks back.
I certainly have my criticisms of them as well, but your post was right on the money. Anyone who compares them to Mormons or JW's is incredibly misinformed or willfully misleading, one or the other.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
8/9/17 8:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I'm not really interested in a debate with you |
Aaron Scott |
| brotherjames wrote: | I Have too much to do And you aren't going to change And neither am I, so why bother. But for the sake of some on here who might be tempted to side with your error out of ignorance here is an answer from someone else who is a trinitarian apologist
Tortured Exegesis vs. the Presupposition of Pre-existence
A doctrine like “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” may seem like a mouthful, or an advanced, abstract theological topic. As such, it may seem a weak and speculative thing to use as an excuse to refuse Christian fellowship to a group. But in fact the idea contained in “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” is quite simple, and is surely the unspoken presupposition which Bible-believing Christians have always had in mind when reading Scripture.
When a theologically untrained Christian reads at the opening of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, and all things came into being through Him…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”, what is he likely to think except that some person called the Word was always God with God and then became incarnate? He would be right to think so, because he would be instinctively making the same adjustment to his monotheism that the apostles and church fathers made in light of the revelation of Christ as God. Oneness believers, having rejected the obvious inference of the eternity of the Son, must work harder with this verse, taking it to mean something like “God always had a plan to become incarnate, since the beginning when he created, and finally he carried out that plan.”
But notice what happens when the eternal Son (the Word who was God) is juggled away: God’s plan to become flesh (his “word” or logos) must now be the thing that John is calling “that which was with God, and was God.” Would we really want to affirm that God’s plan to become flesh is itself God? In John’s teaching, there must be something or someone that “was with God, and was God” in the beginning. For trinitarian Christians, that something or someone is Jesus the eternal Word, about whose incarnate ministry the rest of John’s Gospel tells.
Pre-existence is also the best way to make sense of the famous passage in Philippians 2, in which Paul exhorts his readers to “have this mind in yourself which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not grasp equality with Him, but made Himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant…” It certainly seems that before the incarnation, somebody who already existed made a decision to take on the form of a servant. Similarly, in Galatians Paul says that “when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman.” Apparently God had a Son to send forth. For Oneness Pentecostals this verse must come to mean, “When the fullness of time had come, God became human, and then as God-become-human he maintained an interpersonal relationship with himself which had not previously existed.” |
Bro. James....
I am not Oneness. However, there is one quite sophisticated defense I have heard of Oneness that likely can do the job. I read it here some years ago, but have forgotten just who wrote it, etc.
Very simply, the take is that Jesus, being omnipresent, etc., can exist as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all at the same time. That is, Jesus is not "changing uniforms" every few seconds in order to say this, do that, etc. When Jesus was praying to the Father, He was not offering a prayer, then shape-shifting (so to speak) into the Father to receive the prayer. Instead, since Jesus exists in all three states (perhaps it could even be argued as "persons") at the same time, when the Son prays, the Father hears, etc.
Now, I do not accept this argument, since it likely is open to a number of attacks in reasoning. BUT the notion that Oneness is laughable and easily dismissed isn't always the case. This particular defense is the best one I've heard. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
8/9/17 2:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I'm not really interested in a debate with you |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | brotherjames wrote: | I Have too much to do And you aren't going to change And neither am I, so why bother. But for the sake of some on here who might be tempted to side with your error out of ignorance here is an answer from someone else who is a trinitarian apologist
Tortured Exegesis vs. the Presupposition of Pre-existence
A doctrine like “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” may seem like a mouthful, or an advanced, abstract theological topic. As such, it may seem a weak and speculative thing to use as an excuse to refuse Christian fellowship to a group. But in fact the idea contained in “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” is quite simple, and is surely the unspoken presupposition which Bible-believing Christians have always had in mind when reading Scripture.
When a theologically untrained Christian reads at the opening of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, and all things came into being through Him…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”, what is he likely to think except that some person called the Word was always God with God and then became incarnate? He would be right to think so, because he would be instinctively making the same adjustment to his monotheism that the apostles and church fathers made in light of the revelation of Christ as God. Oneness believers, having rejected the obvious inference of the eternity of the Son, must work harder with this verse, taking it to mean something like “God always had a plan to become incarnate, since the beginning when he created, and finally he carried out that plan.”
But notice what happens when the eternal Son (the Word who was God) is juggled away: God’s plan to become flesh (his “word” or logos) must now be the thing that John is calling “that which was with God, and was God.” Would we really want to affirm that God’s plan to become flesh is itself God? In John’s teaching, there must be something or someone that “was with God, and was God” in the beginning. For trinitarian Christians, that something or someone is Jesus the eternal Word, about whose incarnate ministry the rest of John’s Gospel tells.
Pre-existence is also the best way to make sense of the famous passage in Philippians 2, in which Paul exhorts his readers to “have this mind in yourself which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not grasp equality with Him, but made Himself nothing, taking on the form of a servant…” It certainly seems that before the incarnation, somebody who already existed made a decision to take on the form of a servant. Similarly, in Galatians Paul says that “when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman.” Apparently God had a Son to send forth. For Oneness Pentecostals this verse must come to mean, “When the fullness of time had come, God became human, and then as God-become-human he maintained an interpersonal relationship with himself which had not previously existed.” |
Bro. James....
I am not Oneness. However, there is one quite sophisticated defense I have heard of Oneness that likely can do the job. I read it here some years ago, but have forgotten just who wrote it, etc.
Very simply, the take is that Jesus, being omnipresent, etc., can exist as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all at the same time. That is, Jesus is not "changing uniforms" every few seconds in order to say this, do that, etc. When Jesus was praying to the Father, He was not offering a prayer, then shape-shifting (so to speak) into the Father to receive the prayer. Instead, since Jesus exists in all three states (perhaps it could even be argued as "persons") at the same time, when the Son prays, the Father hears, etc.
Now, I do not accept this argument, since it likely is open to a number of attacks in reasoning. BUT the notion that Oneness is laughable and easily dismissed isn't always the case. This particular defense is the best one I've heard. |
Thanks Aaron.
The only slight correction I would offer would be to substitute the word "God" for "Jesus". It would be more correct to say that God, being omnipresent, etc., can exist as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all at the same time. That is, God is not "changing uniforms" every few seconds in order to say this, do that, etc." As I understand it, Trinitarians are claiming essentially the same things, stating that their use of the term "persons" in relation to the distinctions within God's nature does not denote a belief in three Gods. Rather, Trinitarians affirm that the Father, Son and Spirit are aspects of the same, one God, just as their Oneness counterparts do. The difference lies in whether or not these distinctions were from all eternity or were manifest at a point in time. Even Trinitarians do not all agree on this point, as I have already demonstrated. Thus Bro. James' attacks on Oneness Pentecostals stem form ignorance at best, blatant hypocrisy at worst.
The name "Jesus" came into being through the incarnation and incorporates God's name "Jehovah" as the name Jesus means "Jehovah Savior". In the incarnation Jehovah became Savior. It is in that sense that Oneness Pentecostals use the name of "Jesus" as the proper name for God in the New testament.
Concerning the statement by Brother James you quoted....
| Quote: | A doctrine like “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” may seem like a mouthful, or an advanced, abstract theological topic. As such, it may seem a weak and speculative thing to use as an excuse to refuse Christian fellowship to a group.
Again, he seems to be saying that Trinitarians who do net believe in the doctrine of Eternal Sonship are not true Trinitarians and should be refused Christian fellowship.
But in fact the idea contained in “the eternal pre-existence of the Son” is quite simple, and is surely the unspoken presupposition which Bible-believing Christians have always had in mind when reading Scripture.
SOME Bible believing Christians have it in mind. Others do not agree. No true Christian, including Oneness Pentecostals, deny there was a pre-existent distinction within the being of God known as "the Word". The difference of opinion lies in whether or not a "distinction" within God constitutes a separate center of self consciousness or means that this "Word" pre-existed as a Son without a mother.
When a theologically untrained Christian reads at the opening of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, and all things came into being through Him…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”, what is he likely to think except that some person called the Word was always God with God and then became incarnate?
It is the untrained person who substitutes the words "eternal Son" for the phrase "The Word", instead of relying on the text that shows how and when "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,)"
And how did we behold his glory? We beheld the Word's glory "AS of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
He would be right to think so, because he would be instinctively making the same adjustment to his monotheism that the apostles and church fathers made in light of the revelation of Christ as God. Oneness believers, having rejected the obvious inference of the eternity of the Son, must work harder with this verse, taking it to mean something like “God always had a plan to become incarnate, since the beginning when he created, and finally he carried out that plan.”
Oneness believers believe the Word "was God", the only person of God mentioned in the entirety of the Old Testament, in a form that man could communicate with using the limitation of his 5 senses. The Word was God, and was with (pertained to) God. "The plan" you refer to was for the Word to become flesh and die for the sins of humanity. The apostles never had to make any adjustments to their monotheism, and neither do we. Frankly, to do so would be cultic. Any adjustment to one's monotheism is an admission that the Old Testament does not affirm the doctrine of the eternal Son or that God's nature consists of three centers of self-consciousness. |
What is interesting is that though Augustine was an early proponent of the idea of the "eternal begetting of the Son", he firmly rejected the idea that that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three separately subsisting individuals,”. I wonder if Bro. James would compare Augustine's beliefs to those of Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses. 
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
8/9/17 4:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
