Actscelerate.com

COGLite

One More Time

Friendly Face Posts: 276 **5/4/07 12:49 pm**

THE TRINITARIAN CONCEPT OF GOD
An Answer To "Oneness" Doctrine

Those who hold to the doctrine of the Trinity do so because they believe the Holy Scriptures reveal that sacred truth. Although early church fathers believed and taught that God is a triune God, the source of our belief must be rooted, not in church history, but in God's Word. If it is not taught there it cannot be true.

The doctrine of the Trinity simply stated is this; "There is one God eternally existing in three persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The word, "trinity", means tri-unity or three in one. Trinitarians are strongly monotheistic believing there is only one divine being revealed in three collateral persons, each eternal, and each equally divine.

In the Scriptures we find there are three persons, each called God, yet the Bible says there is but one God. We are driven to the inescapable conclusion that somehow these three persons make up this one God. It is not necessary that we understand how He is, we just must believe that He is.

Colossians 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Here are three basic facts the Scriptures reveal about Jehovah God.

1. There is a person in scripture called the Father and He is God.

2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2. There is a person in scripture called the Son and He is God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

3. There is a person in scripture called the Holy Ghost and He is God.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Yet the Bible declares there is but one God.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Agreement Between Trinitarianism and Oneness
(Oneness is the belief in only one person in the godhead.)

Before we delve into the disagreements between those who believe in the Trinity and those who do not, we should determine on what points we do agree. The following is a list of truths we all hold to be true.

1. There is but one God, Jehovah.

2. The Father is Jehovah.

3. The Son is Jehovah.

4. The Holy Ghost is Jehovah.

5. God is eternal and the Judge of all the earth.

Disagreement

The primary difference between trinitarianism and oneness is whether the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have always existed simultaneously as collateral persons. Trinitarians believe this to be true where oneness holds to the idea that He existed first as the Father, then as the Son, and then as the Holy Ghost. They see Him as only a solitary person who has manifested Himself in three different modes at three different periods of history.

Trinitarians hold to the Athanasian Creed which makes it very clear that they reject tri-theism. "And yet they are not three Gods, but one God."

Those in the "Oneness Movement" hold to Sabellianism which says, "God is a Unity. There are no distinctions in the Divine Being, no trinity of Persons. The one God has revealed Himself in three different forms or modes. Once the purpose of these manifestations is accomplished, the triad will be contracted and become the monad once again."

The Scriptures State There Is But One God

Deut 4:35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me:

Psalm 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Psalm 86:10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

I Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

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

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Scriptures Showing Composite Unity

In our language, as well as the Hebrew and Greek, we have words that express a compound unity or a singular thing comprised of more than one part. A classic example in English is the word "jury". A jury is singular but is comprised of 12 jurors. At the end of a trial one might say, "The jury has spoken."

There are many examples in the Bible of composite unity.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one,

1 Kings 22:13 And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth:

Numbers 13:23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs. (In the Hebrew it doesn't say "cluster", but "one grape" signifying that in the Hebrew language they had the idea of one thing comprised of more than one part. Many grapes connected by stems is called, "one grape".)

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul:

1 Cor 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:

In the Hebrew language there are two words translated "one". The first is "eshod", which signifies a compound unity. The other is "yachid" which is an absolute "one". In every instance the word "eshod" or "compound unity" is used in reference to God. Not one time is the word "yachid" or "absolute unity" used in reference to God.

Scriptures Showing Plurality Of Persons In The Godhead

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

Opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity argue that the use of plural pronouns in the preceding verses signifies the, "plural of majesty". The claim is that ancient kings often spoke in first person plural to denote the majesty of their position. The problem with that argument is that there is no record of "plural of majesty" being used before the thirteenth century of the Christian era. It cannot be found in any ancient writings before that time. When God said, "let us", it was conversation within the Trinity.

Leason Archer said, "Nowhere in the pre-Christian Near East do we have any example of the first person plural being used for the first person singular. Therefore in the case of Genesis 1:26 the "our" must have been intended for a true plural even though it refers to a single God."

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

John 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

2 John 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Conversations Within The Godhead

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.

10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.

John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name, Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Psalm 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Psalm 2:7 The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.

Psalm 110:1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Revelation 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

Proof in Prepositions

The rules that govern the use of language are strict. This is true in most languages but especially so in the Greek of the New Testament. New Testament Greek is much more precise than our English, so by studying the grammar one can know precisely what the text means. Prepositions such as "with" show the plurality of persons within the Godhead. Prepositions such as "into" show preexistence before the incarnation.

The preposition, "with", means, "face to face". There is no way around it in the grammar, if you have one person who is with the other, you have two collateral persons.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

We know from verse John 1:14 the Word is the Lord Jesus. If the Word was with God there were two persons. If there was only one person He could not have been with anyone. As soon as the word "with" appears there has to be two collateral persons.

Oneness proponents will cite you to Job 12:13, "With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding", and ask if one can be face to face with wisdom.

"Word", cannot be an impersonal abstraction as "wisdom", because the Word was God and the personal pronoun, "He", is used.

John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

In the book of Hebrews the preposition, "into", is used in reference to the Lord Jesus at the incarnation. Remember John 1:14 tells us that, "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." The Eternal Word who was with or face to face with God made the transition from Heaven to Bethlehem. Notice the verse in Hebrews.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

The preposition, "into", denotes movement. In English according to Webster's Dictionary it means, "toward and within". The meaning in the Greek is no different. Actually in the Greek this verse reads, "Entering into the world". Now if He was entering into the world He had to exist in another place. "Into", shows a transition from one place to another. To orthodox Christianity this means that the Lord Jesus who had always existed as the Word left Heaven to live in this world.

The Eternal Existence of God the Word

Probably one of the strongest scriptures on the deity of Christ as well as the pre-existence of Christ is found in the Book of Philippians chapter two.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The key to this passage are the words, "being in the form of God". The Greek word for, "being", is the participle, "huparcho", which according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words means, "to exist, which always involves a pre-existent state, prior to the fact referred to, and a continuance of the state after the fact". In other words this verse reads, "Who, always existing in the form of God".

Jesus did not come into existence in Bethlehem, He has always existed and He has always existed as God.

In Isaiah 48:16, a verse previously used to show the plurality of persons, shows us that the Lord Jesus existed and spoke from the beginning.

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

The prophet Micah in foretelling the birth of Jesus spoke of his eternal existence.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Those who hold to the "Oneness" doctrine will agree that Jesus existed eternally but not as a person separate from the Father. Their view is that before the incarnation Jesus was the Father. The problem with that is that it goes against a mountain of scriptures that say otherwise and also goes against the grammar of the Bible which places Him face to face and along side the Father.

Isaiah 9:6

This wonderful verse which speaks of the coming of the Messiah is dear to all who have expressed saving faith in the Savior. This verse is also one that is used by the "Oneness" people to prove that Jesus is the Father. It certainly proves that Jesus is Jehovah God. All trinitarians believe that Jesus is Jehovah. They also believe that the Father is Jehovah and the Holy Ghost is Jehovah. They believe this because the overwhelming weight of scripture teaches it. They don't believe however, that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are the same persons.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Apart from using this verse to show that Jesus is Jehovah, "Oneness" people want to show that Jesus is His Father. A careful study of, "the everlasting father" will reveal that in the Hebrew it is actually saying, "the father of eternities". The Hebrew word for "father" here is, "abba" which can also mean, "origin or originator". This is perfectly in keeping with John 1:1 and Colossians 1:16 which tell us that all things were made by Jesus. That One who was in the beginning with God according to John and Paul made everything that was made. To that extent Jesus is the Father of eternities. He did not however beget Himself. Someone other than He did and it was His Father. He did not send Himself, someone else did and it was His Father. He did not pray to Himself, He prayed to another, His Father. He did not anoint Himself with the Holy Ghost, His Father did.

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

The Baptismal Formula

Oneness believers are absolutely confident of scriptural support for their view regarding the formula to be employed in administering water baptism. Their basic premise is that a conflict exists between the traditional use of the words found in Matthew 28:19 and the practice of the apostles.

Personally, I do not believe that there is the slightest conflict between employing the exact words of the Lord, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and obeying the command of Peter, "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38).

Faced with the necessity of explaining Matthew 28:19, Oneness advocates contend that it could not be considered as the baptismal formula, for the apostles baptized, not, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," but, "in the name of Jesus Christ" (or a variation of that name). Scriptures cited as proof are Acts 2:38, 8:12, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, Romans 6:3-5, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 13, 6:11, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians 2:12.

Oneness believers contend that Jesus is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Titles or Names

Oneness preachers reason that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles and not names. They assert, "Why everybody knows that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles and not names." To illustrate their position, they often depict the difficulty which one would encounter in a crowded bus or train terminal, if he asked the public address announcer to call for his father or son, without giving the proper names. Because there would be many fathers and many sons present, none would know whether or not to respond to "Father" or "Son". But if the father and son were paged by their specific names, no mix-up would occur.

This argument is not quite as potent as "Oneness" people suppose, for it does not include the third term, "Holy Ghost." If the "Holy Ghost" were asked to report to the station master's office, I am confident that no one else would think that he was being requested to appear. "Holy Ghost" is recognized universally as a proper name, belonging exclusively to the Spirit of God.

Neither can we assume that "everybody knows that Father and Son are titles and not names." We need only to consult recognized authorities on matters of speech, dictionaries, grammars, and the best works of literature, for a classification of these terms.

Webster defines "name" in the following manner: "The title by which any person
or thing is known or designated. A descriptive or qualifying appellation...To
entitle, to specify, to identify."

There is no difference between title and name. There is scriptural support for this.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The distinction between title and name exists only in the imagination of the Oneness people.

You must not overlook the fact that common names can become proper names. The great majority of proper names were once common names. Baker, Fisher, Hunter, Smith and most others are proper names that came from a common name.

Even the precious name of Jesus can be subjected to the label of a common name or as some would say, a title. In Numbers 13:16 Moses prophetically changed the name of his successor from "Oshea" to Jehoshua, which means, "Jehovah the Savior," or "Jehovah who saves." The Greek word "Jesus", is derived from the Hebrew word "Jehoshua."

Father and son are usually classified as common names, but when applied in capitalized form to two distinct persons they can and must be regarded as proper names.

It is important to note that Jesus never called His Father "Jehovah". When He prayed He called Him Father or my God. He taught us to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven".

Mark you, Trinitarians do not contend that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the only names for the Triune God. A long list of names could be given, scriptural names, which are descriptive of the various attributes of the Divine Being.

"Oneness" proponents search in vain for a single Scripture to back up their argument that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles and not names. It is a figment of their own imagination, unsupported by either sacred or secular authority.

Let us take a look at Matthew 28:19.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

A traditional Oneness protest against our interpretation of the verse is that the singular form is used: "If these three titles were names, the verse would read, 'in the names of,' rather than, 'in the name of.'"

Let me cite two examples from the Bible showing that the singular can be used in reference to persons or things grouped together in a corporate sense.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Notice it is "fruit" and not "fruits".

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Notice it is "name" and not "names".

If the Oneness assertion is correct Paul should have said, "But the fruits of the Spirit are..."

If the Oneness assertion is correct Isaiah should have said, "And his names shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." There are five names in this verse yet Isaiah, under divine inspiration, uses the singular and says: "and his name shall be called...."

"In The Name Of"

We plead guilty to the charge that we repeat the words which our Lord instructed us to employ, but we reject the charge that by repeating His words we disobey His command. After all what is this whole discussion about? Is it not concerned with the baptismal formula? And what is a formula? Is it not "an orderly statement of faith or doctrine, the prescribed words of a ceremony or rite"? Then, what should we do with a formula except repeat it? By employing the identical words which the Master commanded us to employ, we not only repeat His words, but we also obey His command.

Oneness proponents have challenged, "Show us one place in Acts where the apostles or other Christians, said, 'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'".

I issue this challenge: Produce one quotation from the Book of Acts, in which the one who administers baptism states: "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ" (or any other variation of that name - Christ Jesus, Lord, Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ).

No one however, can produce such a quotation, for the simple reason that there is not a single instance in the Book of Acts when any baptismal formula is given. Luke, the author of Acts, does not set forth the details of any rite, including water baptism. The absence from the record of an actual pronouncement of the words, "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ," weakens immeasurably the Oneness position.

We need to take a look at the use of the phrase, "in the name of".

Webster's Dictionary defines it as following, "by the authority of". For example a police officer might say, "Stop in the name of the law." What does he mean by that? He means he has the authority of the law behind him with the right to stop someone.

Let us however, appeal to scripture to see how this phrase is used.

1 Sam 25:9 And when David's young men came, they spake to Nabal according to all those words in the name of David, and ceased.

Esther 3:12 Then were the king's scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king's ring.

Mat 10:41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

In each of these instances it clear that these are things done by the authority of someone. It is not just a pronouncement of a name.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Does this verse mean that we must pronounce the name of Jesus before everything we do?

"I put on this suit in the name of Jesus."
"I chew this piece of steak in the name of Jesus."
"I kiss my beloved wife in the name of Jesus."

Or does this verse mean that everything we do, we should do by the authority of Jesus?

There is only one command in the scriptures given to the baptizers. It is the command Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19. He said to do it, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". He said this just after telling them that He had the authority.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power (or authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

When He said, "Go ye therefore", it is obvious that He was authorizing them to baptize. When we do it, we do it by His authority. When we do anything in the name of Jesus, we do it just like He said to do it by His authority.

When the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus they were doing just like He told them and by His authority.

Baptismal Regeneration

Although not specifically stated in the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church, baptismal regeneration is believed and preached by its ministers. S. R. Hanby, in his pamphlet The Apostles' Doctrine (pp. 4, 5), which is widely circulated among Oneness churches, writes: "Water baptism is an essential part of the New Testament salvation: and not, as some teach, "just an outward form of an inward cleansing.' Without proper baptism it is impossible to enter the Kingdom of God (God's true Church, the Bride of Christ)." By "proper baptism" he means immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Without this Name, water baptism is void!"

Without exception, there is great stress laid upon those Scriptures which apparently teach baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:39; 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Peter 3:21). "Born of water" (John 3:5) is interpreted as water baptism, without which one cannot enter the kingdom of God. And, of course, if the formula, "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," is not used, the baptized one experiences no remission of sins.

Consistency demands that, if the references to water baptism are to be taken so literally, certainly, a similar interpretation should be given to the passages concerning the bread and the wine: "This is my body....this is my blood...except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (Matthew 26:26,2828; John 6:53).

Even God-given ritual, when substituted for the spiritual reality, becomes a curse. The brazen serpent unto which the children of Israel were commanded to look and live (Numbers 21:8,9) was destroyed when it ceased to be a symbol and became an idol, unto which "the children of Israel did burn incense." 2 Ki 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Notice the following conversation between Phillip and the eunuch:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Compare the preceding with what John said about believing and being born again.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Phillip wouldn't baptize the eunuch unless he believed with all his heart and then John says, "Everyone who believes is born of God."

I don't know how much clearer it could be than that. Believing brings the new birth and baptism follows. John says, "Everyone who believes". That includes baptized believers and believers who have not yet been baptized. They are all born of God.

Surely one cannot receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost while still a child of the devil. Yet in Scripture we find people receiving the Holy Ghost without having been baptized in water.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as
came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy
Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

If baptism saves, then these folks received the Holy Ghost before they were even saved. You need to notice what Jesus said about who could receive the Holy Ghost.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

According to Jesus, only saved people can received the Holy Ghost. Those who are still in the world cannot receive Him.

Those who teach baptismal regeneration seize upon certain proof texts, which on the surface, seem to teach that water baptism is the saving element. The apparent identification of water baptism with regeneration in these passages does not mean that we are to interpret them in a manner which is contrary to explicit statements elsewhere in the Word, or in a manner completely out of harmony with the general teaching of the Word.

Let us examine several of these texts.

Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It is important to note that the word "believeth" is used twice in this passage and the word "baptized" is used only once. Note that the absence of believing is what brings damnation. Faith, then, is the essential element in our salvation in this verse and many others that do not even mention baptism. (John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24; 11: 25; 12:46; 20:31; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9,10; Ephesians 2:8,9)

If baptism were as important as the Oneness adherents claim, then the Lord would have specified: "He that believeth but is not baptized shall be damned."

Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This verse must be harmonized with other passages that mention repentance such as the following.

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

These specify repentance with no mention of baptism in connection remission. In the Acts 2:38 passage the key is found in the word "for". "Be baptized....for the remission of sins." The Greek word for "for" is "eis" and is sometimes translated in the sense of "because of". In the following passage Jesus tells a leper He has just healed to offer a sacrifice because of his cleansing.

Luke 5:12-14 And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Notice that the man was cleansed of leprosy. Leprosy was a type of sin in the Old Testament and is never spoken of as being healed but cleansed. In our text Jesus had already cleansed him when He told him to "offer for thy cleansing". He was not to offer in order to be cleansed but because of the cleansing that had already taken place.

In Acts 2:38 in keeping with the other passages about repentance and remission Peter told them to "repent and be baptized because of the remission of sins."

Acts 22:16

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

The verb translated "wash" here is a participle and literally says, "having washed away thy sins." It makes a vast difference if you read the verse, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, having washed away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

If "wash away thy sins" refers to the effect of water baptism, it is strange indeed that Paul does not speak glowingly of baptism as the means of his cleansing. Not once does Paul speak of baptism, but on the contrary, informs the Corinthians that he was not sent to baptize, having baptized only a few Corinthian believers. Think of it! Paul thanked God that he had deliberately refused to administer unto many of them that which some literalists insist washes away sins.

What is it that washes away sins?

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

How is it done?

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice in the Acts 22:16 passage Ananias instructed Paul to do the calling on the name of the Lord. This is not the one doing the baptizing, calling upon the name of the Lord. According to what Paul tells us in Romans, it is the calling that does the saving.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Sin is not an outward filth that can be washed away by water. It is inward and can only be cleansed by the blood of Jesus that is applied by faith.

1 Peter 3:21

1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

You have to read verse 21 in the light of verse 20. Verse 20 sheds a great deal of light on the subject. We read that "eight souls were saved by water". Let me ask you if it was the water that actually saved them? Or was it the ark that saved them? In a figurative sense, the waters of baptism save us, but it is our being in the true Ark, the Lord Jesus Christ, that actually saves us. In verse 20 the only people who were saved were high and dry in the ark.

Baptism is a "figure," a symbol, a type - it is not the reality itself. In order to be a "figure," baptism cannot possibly be that of which it is the figure. It is not written, "Thou shall call it baptism for it shall save his people from their sins," but, "Thou shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins!"

It is Jesus that saves! Peter writes that baptism is the "answer of a good conscience toward God."

Romans 6:3

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

It should be obvious that we cannot be literally baptized into Christ, just as we cannot be literally baptized into His death. Can water baptism transport us back through the centuries, and actually nail us to the cross with Christ, or bury us with Christ in the tomb? Certainly not. Neither can water baptism transport us through the skies and place us, in a physical sense, into the Christ who is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Baptism is more than a vivid picture of our identification with the historical Christ in His death and resurrection. It is also a symbol of a spiritual baptism.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

John 3:5

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

According to Oneness teaching, "born of water" refers to water baptism, and "born of the Spirit" refers to the baptism or infilling with the Holy Ghost. Let us consider first the "water."

The subject of the verse is the new birth. The new birth is the impartation of the divine nature that makes us new creatures. It is the accepted belief of the overwhelming majority of believers that John 3:5 is but one of the frequent Scriptures which reveal that it is the Word, spoken of here as "the water," and the Holy Spirit that are the two divine agents which combine to effect this glorious miracle called the new birth.

Water is a scriptural symbol for the Word.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Psa 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

There is not one verse of Scripture anywhere which states clearly that we are born again by water baptism, while there are a number of passages which attribute the new birth to the Word.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

"But w-a-t-e-r spells water," protests the Oneness teacher, "and therefore, born of water must refer to the literal water of baptism." Not necessarily. What about the promise: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire". (Matthew 3:11)? F-i-r-e spells fire, but does this mean that we must accept the promise as a reference to literal fire?

Jesus could have just as easily said, "Except a man be baptized in water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." But He didn't. B-o-r-n doesn't spell baptize and w-a-t-e-r doesn't necessarily refer to literal water.

If water baptism is necessary for salvation then the thief on the cross is in hell today. If water baptism is essential for salvation you couldn't be saved by yourself. You would need someone else to baptize you. You couldn't be saved if you were dying in the middle of the desert or in the frozen arctic. Hundreds of people who are too sick to take out and baptize would have no way to be saved. Men and women on death row could not be saved for they allow no baptism there. Thank God, all it takes to be saved is saving faith in the finished work of Calvary.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Scooter

Yeah

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1741 **5/4/07 1:12 pm**

Yeah, what he said! Cool

Dave Dorsey

Re: Tripsd

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 13654 **5/4/07 1:39 pm**

The strict Constructionis

Rebutal to COGLite's Trinity essay.

Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia Posts: 4295 **5/4/07 5:58 pm**

fire-starter

I never knew

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1947 **5/7/07 8:22 pm**

the trinity was in question. I guess I've been in the dark.

The strict Constructionis

God's existence as..................

Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia Posts: 4295 **5/7/07 8:41 pm**

.....................Father, son and Holy Spirit has never been in question.

What that exactly means is a debatable subject and should be questioned.

spartanfan

Put it to rest

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3638 **5/8/07 7:13 am**

The Trinity is obvious all through the Bible. The Quran speaks against the Diety of Christ and the Trinity - which lets me know that Satan does not like those two Scriptural doctrines. They are of satan who deny the Father and the Son. Those who deny the Father and the Son are of the spirit of antichrist. Too much time has to be spent arguing with the smaller and less prominent pentecostals over the Trinity. But it's like arguing with a Muslim or cultist - after much Biblical proof they continue to regurgitate the junk they've been fed.
I actually heard a oneness preacher say Jesus was "throwing His voice" at His baptism to say "This is my beloved Son", for the benefit of those present. Does the oneness Bible read, "...I see Jesus standing at Jesus' right hand"? When asked why the Trinity is obvious but ignored, the leader of one major oneness denomination responded "we've been riding this horse for a long time and you don't change horses in the middle of a stream". That was the response by the leader of the second largest oneness denomination in America. How Scriptural is that answer? My point is that we keep doing this on here and it's a waste of time. What about the leader of the second largest oneness denomination in America responding to their ignoring the obvious Scriptural references to the Trinity by saying "you don't change horses in the middle of a stream"?
To try to say that the apostles were oneness is ridiculous. If they were then the Book of John would start out saying, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was Jesus. Jesus was in the beginning with Jesus.(etc.)." Try putting the name Jesus everywhere you see Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Lord, God - everywhere you find reference to one or more of the members of the Godhead. At His baptism you will have Jesus coming up out of the water and Jesus saying this is my beloved Jesus in whom Jesus is well pleased as Jesus descends upon Jesus in the form of a dove. Maybe you better stick with the explanation of the leader of the second largest oneness denomination in America: when told by one of his leading ministers that "I'm having some serious doubts because I keep seeing the Trinity all through the Bible", he responded by saying, "Now Brother __________, we've been riding this horse a long time and you don't change horses in the middle of a stream." How lame can you get - that is the leader? No Scripture to come back with only tradition. In the Garden of Gethsemane was Jesus saying to Jesus, "Jesus, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Jesus"? The oneness view makes for some interesting reading...you have Him saying "Jesus and Jesus are one". Or baptizing them in the name of Jesus, Jesus and Jesus. You better get off of that traditional horse cause it ain't going anywhere. In my opinion the oneness people try to scare people into staying in their churches by saying or insinuating that unless you've been baptized in the name of Jesus you might not make it to Heaven. I have seen it over and over again where I live. I've helped backslidden oneness people find their way back to Jesus and some were so brainwashed by the doctrines they grew up with that they felt they had to go back to the oneness church they grew up in to make it all the way back to Jesus! I'm glad I could help them get saved and if they just liked the old church better I wouldn't care as much but knowing that fear (by their own admission) drove them back makes me hate the bondage of the oneness churches even more. I guess if you've been riding a horse all of your life and you're told if you get off you might not make it in to Heaven you would be afraid to get off. In my opinion it's bondage. Fear is used to hold them - and God has not given the spirit of fear. I see no room for the oneness fear antics in true Christianity. The oneness stuff (the dominant ones today) is an offshoot of pentecostalism. It is pentecostalism gone ignorant. And them using fear to hold their people in their denomination is what I abhor. Threatening them that if they leave and go to a Trinitarian church they might not make it to Heaven. Have you ever noticed how we open our churches to the oneness evangelists and musicians, but generally speaking they keep their doors closed to Trinitarian evangelists? What happens though is people like Joel Hemphil, Geron & Becky Davis, Vickie Yohee, T.D. Jakes and others start backing off of the Jesus only stuff after being enlightened to the fact that all of the stuff they were brainwashed with isn't necessarily true. When arguing over whether or not Trinidadians will make it to Heaven in one oneness church's state convention, Anthony Mangum stood up and said, "Brethren, I don't think God gave the Trinitarians the Holy Ghost so they can walk around in Hell speaking in tongues." If they were more like him - they would almost be tolerable. But then, he is one of their biggest and most successful. He has more understanding than most. The Jews for Jesus are Trinitarian.
There are so many great Theologians who are (were) Trinitarian and no universally renowned oneness Theologians. Think of the names of great Theologians or evangelists and pastors past and present – why no oneness? Where is the oneness “Billy Graham” or “John Wesley” or “Adrian Rodgers” or “Charles Finney” or “D.L. Moody” or “Paul Crouch” or “Jim Baker” or “Joyce Meyers” or “Rick Warren” or “Charles Stanley” or “Jack Hayford” or “John MacArthur” or “Paula White” or “Paul LaVerne Walker” or “Jerry Falwell”? The oneness movement is a smaller ignorant splinter group with no credibility whatsoever. They have no intelligent Theologians and are relatively insignificant just about everywhere except when they jump on here and try to hijack this board. We do this debate over and over again because of a few brainwashed and confused people. One of their greatest evangelists, Joel Hemphil has now written a book renouncing their doctrine. How many oneness preachers will call him backslid? Let’s just have a tug-of-war, the Trinitarians on one side of the rope and the oneness people on the other and get this over once and for all. Or let’s have a debate, their greatest arguer against our greatest Theologian (they don’t have any great Theologians so they’ll have to send an arguer). This goes on and on and most people here are sick of it. Does anyone have the numbers on “world population of Trinitarians vs. oneness”? What would it be – a hundred to one? A thousand to one? Who knows. The great Theologians are thousands to none in favor of the Trinitarians. So why this thread?

FloridaForever

Spartanfan...No argument, I see

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2295 **5/8/07 9:22 am**

You've REGURGITATED that same tripe over and over. No Biblical arguments. Just your ignorance.

The Muslims are also against adultery. Guess that standard must be of the devil, too, right? You ADD NOTHING to this discussion.

Can't you just stay at home and play with your coloring books?

Either start actually making an argument or be quiet. So far, it seems that you are saying, "Because all of these people believe it, it must be true."

Well, many of those folks don't believe in Pentecost. Is it wrong too?

The truth or falsity of the Trinity is NOT AT ALL BASED on who or who does not believe it. It is based on what the scriptures say. And you never offer any.

When you don't really know what you're talking about, best thing to do is not post at all.

spartanfan

Now you get it!

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3638 **5/8/07 9:57 am**

When you don't really know what you're talking about, best thing to do is not post at all.

That's what I've been saying all along. Jesus praying to Jesus is stupid. To say I see Jesus standing at Jesus' right hand is ignorant. The whole oneness thing is ridiculous. Jesus throwing his voice and saying "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" is crazy. In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was Jesus is a hoot. The oneness people are totally ignorant, no scholars, no major evangelists, no world renouned Theologians - just a splinter off of real pentecost. They are puny and don't know what they are talking about. Guys like spartanfan and floridaforever can't debate this because one says "the Trinity is all through the Bible " and gives numerous examples and the other then argues...on and on forever. Then one says, "Let's let our champions debate it", and the oneness have no champions.......so what do we do? Just call each other names?

The strict Constructionis

Spartanfan

Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia Posts: 4295 **5/8/07 3:40 pm**

You couldn't debate a oneness minister because you are clueless as to what we believe.

You ALWAYS re-invent the oneness doctrine and then critique what you've re-invented.

spartanfan

You're the one who won't answer!

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3638 **5/8/07 4:07 pm**

When Jesus came up out of the water - who's voice was the voice from Heaven saying this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."? Do you too say that Jesus was throwing His voice. Obviously you have two persons there, the one talking and the one He is talking about - or do you say He was talking about Himself for the benefit of the people there (lol). You see, the oneness view is ridiculous. Look for the article by a recently converted oneness minister in the June Jerusalem Post (English Edition)and the endorsement of the leading Hebrew scholar (a rabbi) in Israel. The Father and Son it will say are two different individuals co-existing. Does that help with your baptism problem? You guys are the ones who argue without a Scriptural leg to stand on and no legitimate established and reputable Theologians to represent your case. The oneness church is in trouble because all you can do is perpetuate your subculture through fear tactics. No respected Theologians. Who will you put up against John Ankerburg to debate your ridiculous teachings? Who will face off with Pat Roberson, some old geiser who can fire back with "we've been ridin' this horse a long time and you don't change horses in the middle of a stream."? Jesus throwing His voice - did the Son of God deceive? Were his miracles magic tricks too then in your opinion? Of course not. You don't have a leg to stand on. You rely on fear and ignorance, but you have some real problems. More and more your high profile evangelists and singers are coming over to the winning side. Your churches are starting to allow pants and jewelry and make-up in a last ditch effort to try to hold on to people who won't be intimidated by the misapplication of certain Scriptures. Yes, you're in trouble because fear and ignorance are slowly disappearing and so is your ability to hold your high profile evangelists and musical entertainers. Get the Jerusalem Report when it comes out next month and you'll see. Another one bites the dust. You can't hold praying people with fear tactics.

The strict Constructionis

Again Spartanfan

Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia Posts: 4295 **5/8/07 5:06 pm**

Old Time Country Preacher

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 15570 **5/12/08 2:33 pm**

The co-equality of persons within the tri-unity of God is more scriptural than monarchianism, sabellianism, subordinationism an all other heresy-isms combined.

Stay Strong

Friendly Face Posts: 226 **5/17/08 5:12 pm**

Man, I'm glad I found this topic. This is a question that, only recently after 37 years on this earth, I have wrestled with. I need some definitive answers. I have dug and dug and searched and nearly LITERALLY screamed to God, while driving to work, to show me the truth. I hear some trinitarians say that oneness people are cults. I hear oneness people say trinitarians are not saved because of their belief. So, with all of this drivel thrown around do just pick one philosophy and take a 50/50 shot at going to hell? Do I take a neutral stance and just believe that salvation is through Christ?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not a "do as you're told" individual. The COG disappointed me because anytime anyone asked questions in the COG the "you're in rebellion" thing would get tossed out there. I don't believe in "do as you're told." The "do as you're told" mentality gave the world nothing but catholicism for 1300 years. I believe God wants us to seek answers. To ask questions.

Help me here folks. I spent 37 years as a trinitarian, but the last 3 months leaning to a oneness belief, but still very cautious.

Next question or the oneness folks. Could this mean that my water baptism "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" just a farce? If I conclude to oneness I almost feel obligated to getting water baptized again.

Thanks folks. Both sides of the argument are welcome. Meanwhile I will continue in prayer.

Stay Strong

Friendly Face Posts: 226 **5/17/08 5:14 pm**

Oh, nevermind. All the info is here. I just need to read, but I guess I needed to vent over the subject.

Rafael D Martinez

this was a good thread

Acts-dicted Posts: 7766 **5/23/09 11:55 am**

I PM'd you, Stay .. hope you check it out
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16

These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987

Stay Strong

Friendly Face Posts: 226 **11/21/09 8:33 pm**

Rafael. Today is my first time back in over a year. I checked out your sight and was very interesting. Thanks for that link. There were several things I looked into that have helped me to decide that God was in fact not absent from Heaven when Christ was on Earth. It is clear that Christ is at the right hand of God. It didn't take long after some research that I'm sticking with my roots and am confident all the way in my conviction. Thanks for this thread folks and thank you Rafael for the link. Good stuff. Cool