Update: Commenting on this post has been closed due to the length of the comments that it draws. If you have left a comment and it was deleted, just know that it was due to its length. Feel free to comment on future posts with appropriately succint comments. Thank you.
So I’m listening to this debate (available here) as I type on the Trinity between Oneness Pentecostal author and Pastor David K. Bernard and Calvinist Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. and to be honest, I’m not impressed with either. As far as debates go, Bernard is winning (correction, ‘won’ — It just ended) because his arguments are better and he is more prepared, but winning a debate doesn’t mean that the winner is correct.
I think we can just chalk this up to Pastor Cook not being all that well educated on the topic or not being prepared. It seems as though he gathered his information from apologetic web sites or maybe some elementary level books such as Morey’s The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, but without speaking with Cook personally I can’t know that for sure. I do however know that he much like myself is without formal education past high school. He has not attended college or seminary and perhaps he should in order to gain a better understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.
In his opening statement Cook made the mistake of describing the Persons of the Trinity as ‘separate’ which Bernard noted and pointed out in his rebuttal. Cook replied by saying that he didn’t believe that he had said that, but if he did he didn’t mean it. OK… fair enough, mistakes happen. Cook also presented the weak argument that Genesis 1:26-27 somehow shows the Trinity from the very beginning of scripture when in fact all it does is help to build a case for it. At best we can say that it supports plurality but that can be 2 to infinity… 3 is not expressly mentioned by the uses of ‘us’ and ‘our’ in that passage.
When it came to the question and answer session Cook failed miserably to adequately answer Bernard’s questions (he answered them, but not even to my satisfaction and I’m a Trinitarian!). Bernard asked Cook to define how he was using the term ‘person’ in reference to God and Cook’s answer was along the lines of saying that a ‘person is distinct’ (which doesn’t actually define what ‘person’ means.) And to top it off, at the end of Bernard’s questioning he somehow tricked Cook into saying that Jesus was the name of the One God by asking what the one name of Matthew 28:19 was to which Cook said ‘God’ (notice he said God, not Yahweh) and then Bernard jumped over to Acts 4:12 asking what that name that could save was and Cook said Jesus. Fallacious as it was, it seemed to make Bernard’s point… I found myself frustrated to say the least.
And what was worse is that when it came time for Cook to question Bernard, Bernard was ready with answers (wrong as they were, he was still ready). At one point Cook asked the question does God dwell in Satan. Bernard said no and was then asked if that limits God’s omnipresence which of course he answered saying no, it doesn’t. Bernard then proceeded to differentiate between omnipresence as meaning present in all physical locations at one time and indwelling as having a controling relationship with the one being indwelt (both adequate definitions and at least he defined his terms!) — Cook then asked the same question again and Bernard replied that no, God does not indwell Satan and no God is not in Satan (in reference to omnipresence) because Satan is not a physical location. Cook then proceeds with this line of question and then really stuck his foot in his mouth by saying, well you’ve just given an example of where God is not physically present in Satan to which Bernard replied, but Satan isn’t a physical being. Then the audience began to laugh and I just sat there shaking my head.
Cook then closed out by jumping off the topic of the Trinity and jumping on Oneness Pentecostalism in general saying that it’s built on a faulty foundation, that they have the wrong baptismal formula, that tongues isn’t necessary for salvation, and that one can’t be saved in it. True as those statements may be, they had nothing to do with the topic of debate which was the Trinity. I was very disappointed to say the least with Cook’s performance. In conclusion, Bernard won the debate with a false doctrine and a terrible understanding of the nature and persons of God. It just so happens that his opponent was a worse debator than he was.
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
lol I also heard the debate but I also agree with Bernards point of view. The bible is so clear on the basic doctrines of the church. I still dont get how people say you have to be baptized in the name father son holy spirit when none of the deciples did this. Does this mean the deciples are unsaved then since, according to trinitarians, you must be baptized in the titles and they clearly according to scripture did no such thing in any way shape or form. How do people miss this?
Scripture is clear in as much as you understand the context in which it is set. This includes knowing the culture, the languages, the thought processes, etc. So when we say that things are clear that doesn’t mean that they are equally clear to everyone.
Second Temple Judaism and First Century Graeco-Roman culture was what is today called a high context culture which means that they had a very in depth knowledge of their surroundings and the things that were going on. Because of this many things were simply taken for granted and not clearly spelled out in the writings that later became the Bible. The authors presupposed that their audience had a base knowledge of what was happening.
That being said, the commandment to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is explicitly given in Matthew 28:19. When we read in the book of Acts that men were baptized in Jesus’ name we are not reading a formulaic construction of what was said when they were being baptized. The formula was given in Matthew 28:19. What we are reading in Acts is that these men baptized others in the authority that Christ gave them to do so.
Since I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration I don’t believe that anyone who is baptized with an improper formula or not baptized at all isn’t saved because of that. Salvation is the solitary act of the Trinitarian God. The Father draws (Jo. 6:44), the Son redeems (Tit. 2:14), and the Spirit seals (Eph. 1:13).
So when you say that something is is clear according to Scripture, it just might be that you missed the boat because you didn’t have the same base knowledge that the original audience had. I believe that this is such an instance.
Oh, and this just crossed my mind. Matthew was composed after the events described in Luke-Acts, so it would seem unthinkable for the author of Matthew to quote Jesus as commanding baptism with the Trinitarian formula when the practice had been Jesus’ name only.
What sense would this make and why would the author of Matthew put these words in Jesus’ mouth when so many people were alive to refute him?
Just something to think about.
the bible is clear about baptizing people using the name of JESUS Christ, if you could just understand the oneness of GOD, you will see that the father,son and the holy ghost are one,when we say one here it means that these titles are just some description about Jesus, some people misunderstood what Jesus declared in Mat.28:19 they taught that it is the right formula in baptizing people but in acts 2:38 peter declared the NAME what in mat 28:19 was describing mat.28:19 tells us that we should get baptized in the NAME see the singularity NOT NAMES it means there is only one being or person behind it and it is been revealed by the holy ghost after they received the promise of the Lord that we should get baptized in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST.Not in those titles, youre right,not a single apostle was been or baptized any person using the titles but in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST. here are the logic:
MATTHEW- IN MY NAME…
LUKE- IN HIS NAME…
JOHN- IN THE NAME…
and these three are one in commandment,we should be baptized in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.
What can you say? I have alot of proofs that the oneness of GOD are the right one, his is not 3 or 2, he is 1, He is The God ALONE.
when peter declared that the baptism should ne done in the name of Jesus, matthew was there, according to acts 1:3 it says
“3And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.”
see?if matthew doesnt know the right name that a man should be baptized,he will going to argue with peter, but matthew have the same holy ghost that peter have, and they are guided by the spirit of GOD,for the bible teaches us that “they that are led by the spirt(the holy ghost) they are the sons of GOD.”
so for us Trinity has no place in the bible,so wake up now for this concept of the GODHEAD is not biblical,even the apostles preaches or teaches us that GOD is one,Jesus is the only ONE TRUS GOD,besides him,there is none.No other Gods before and after him,for GOD is ETERNAL.
Kyle,
I understand the oneness of God perfectly (well as perfectly as Scripture allows it) and God is a Tri-Unity (unity meaning ONE) of Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I also understand your Sabellian/Modalistic position and I reject it.
That being said the Father’s name is not Jesus and the Holy Spirit’s name is not Jesus. The one name of Matthew 28:19 that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share is not Jesus. As I said above, to baptize in Jesus’ name was to baptize in his authority and while I realize you might disagree with this, your disagreement doesn’t refute the point.
As far as proofs that God is 1 and not 2 or 3 you can save them–I believe that God is absolutely One God — I’m a Trinitarian, not a tri-theist! I’d really ask that you (as well as all other ‘oneness’ advocates) would familiarize yourselves with the beliefs of Trinitarians before attempting to argue against the Trinity.
I’d also note that it is quite possible that the apostle Matthew is not the author of the Gospel that bears his name. You do know that the Gospels were all originally anonymous, right?
But let’s say that Matthew was the author–that only goes to further my point. If Matthew was present at Pentecost in Acts 2 and he saw the manner in which people were baptized and went back 30-40 years later and wrote that Jesus commanded baptism with the Trinitarian formula, then he must have either contradicted the normative practice or observed the practice as using the Trinitarian formula.
I certainly don’t believe that the author falsified the words of Jesus and I know without a doubt that there is no support for your modalistic position, so I’ll stick with my original assessment.
I THINK CORRECTION I HONESTLY BELIVE THAT THE WORD CAN DEFEND ITS SELF AND DOES NOT NEED OUR THOUGHT OR MAYBE THE WORD CLEARLY STATES THAT IN THOSE DAYS AND STILL DO BAPTIZE IN THE NAME OF JESUS AND THE BIBLE ALSO CLEARLY STATES IN ANY LANGUAGE I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SPEAK THAT HE IS ONE LORD SO LETS JUST BE MEN AND FAITHFULL MEN AND FOLLOW
In Acts 9:5 When Saul cried out to God and asked God who he was, God answered and said, “I AM JESUS”. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. 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. Acts 8:15-16 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Colossians 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. (Acts 8:16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were BAPTIZED in the NAME of the LORD JESUS. Gentiles were COMMANDED – (Acts 10:48) And he COMMANDED them to be BAPTIZED in the NAME of the Lord. (Acts 19:3) And he said unto them, Unto WHAT then were ye BAPTIZED? And they said, Unto JOHN’S BAPTISM. (Acts 19:4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (Acts 19:5) When they HEARD THIS, they were BAPTIZED in the NAME of the LORD JESUS. If the Titles were to be used then why did the verses not say In the Name of The Father, Of The Son and Of the Holy Ghost??? It said it was done in the Name of The Jesus Christ or in the Name of the Lord Jesus. The Titles are never mentioned. Why is that? How can you deny that? How can you deny what scripture says and try to make them say something that they don’t say.
The Catholic Handbook, 1988: “The Catholic Church teaches that the fathomless mystery we call God has revealed himself to human-kind as a Trinity of Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Church of our Fathers – 1950, pg. 46: “The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors, who wished to prevent any more such quarrels, decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death. This law was later to be used against the Unitarians (Oneness Faith Believers). At the earlier time, however, the bishops were horrified that the truth should be defended by the shedding of blood.”The Encyclopedia Americana – 1956, VOL. XXVII, PAGE 294L:”Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was (and still is) strictly Unitarian (Oneness – believing that God is only one). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early (Originally Apostolic) Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary, and deviation from this teaching.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia – 1967, VOL. XIV, PAGE 299:The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY. But it is precisely this formulation that first claimed to title “The Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING SUCH A MENTALITY OR PERSPECTIVE.
There is also great speculation, and it is not by Modalistic Monarchians, such as myself, as to whether or not the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost are even mentioned in the Original manuscripts. I also find it interesting that the Earliest Manuscript that Matthew is translated from is from the 4th Century.
Doug,
You said:
First of all, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit function as proper names in the Bible, they are not merely titles — secondly, your question was answered before you asked it — please take the time to read all the comments to this blog post — thirdly, the “titles” ARE mentioned in Matthew 28:19 which was written AFTER Acts — follow my line of argument above — fourthly, I don’t deny Scripture–I take what it does say and interpret it within its historical framework.
Concerning your quotes above, I’d love to see them in CONTEXT — sound bites are nice but rarely productive.
I would however correct your understanding of what Trinitarians believe — you seem to think that we believe in more than one God — we DON’T!!! So if ‘oneness’ means ‘monotheism’ then Trinitarians are ‘oneness’ believers. Also, your belief is just as heretical to an orthodox Jew as the belief of Trinitarians so please don’t think that you some how line up theologically with them.
I would note that there WAS a change in Judaism which is what we now call Christianity and if they were ever ‘strictly unitarian’ (which is a misnomer — the word is monotheists, not unitarians) then they were no longer after the incarnation of the Son. Richard Bauckham argues in God Crucified that Jesus was included in the divine identity of Yahweh by early Christians which maintained monotheism and Larry Hurtado in Lord Jesus Christ documents the earliest Christian devotion to Jesus alongside Yahweh which was a drastic change but did not violate monotheism.
I’d ask if you have read the Apostolic Fathers — if you had then you would know that while they didn’t articulate their belief in the Trinity with the same creedal formulation as those who came later, they absolutely affirmed every proposition that led to such formulations (as did the Apostles).
You said:
In point of fact there isn’t great speculation at all about the “titles” in Matthew 28:19 being original as they are in EVERY manuscript that contains the verse. See my blog post here for more on that.
And it is NOT true that the earliest manuscript that Matthew is translated from is from the fourth century. There are papyri of Matthew that date to the third century — they are: P1, P45, P64, P70, P77 (possibly 2nd century!), P101, P103 (possibly 2nd century!), P104 (2nd century!!!)
I use to be a trinitarian, untill I actually read my bible and found out that there no such thing as trinity or tri-unity or three in one…etc etc
and to tell you the truth, i still can’t believe that i was lied to all these years.
I was baptized in the name of the Father Son and HolyGhost when i was about 14yrs… but once God opened my eyes… i then was Baptiezed in the name of JESUS.
after recieving the gift of the holyghost… I can truley say… “I am now saved” I’m 21yrs of age… And i know, very soon, I will be preaching this message…
Peter,
Paul spoke of your situation when he said:
In rejecting the Trinity you have wandered off into myths. I’d like to know a couple of things though.
In reading your Bible did you ever come across John’s Gospel? If so then you MUST have read the very first verse which shows an eternal and PERSONAL distinction between God (the Father) and the Word/Son. Surely you saw that it was the Word/Son who became flesh (Jo. 1:14) and not the Father.
You must have also read John 14:16 where the Son (Jesus) says that he will ask the Father (notice how he distinguished the Father from himself) and the Father will send ANOTHER (αλλον) helper and then describes this OTHER helper as the Spirit of truth in vs. 17. Or if you jump down to John 14:26 then you would have read how the Father sends the Spirit in the Son’s name. How about a chapter later in 15:26 where the Son says that he sends the Spirit from the Father — did you read that? How is it that the Father AND the Son BOTH send the Spirit if they are all in fact one person?
Did you ever read Paul’s epistles when you were actually reading your Bible? If so then did you ever notice how Paul always seems to present salvation in Trinitarian terms (see Eph. 2:18; 1The. 1:4-6; 2The. 2:13-14; 1Cor. 6:11; 2Cor. 1:21-22; Rom. 8:3-4)?
When you read your Bible did you happen past Hebrews 9:14? Would you mind if I quoted it?
Notice how the author of Hebrews in speaking of the perfection of Christ’s atonement does so with reference to the Trinity.
Don’t you find all of this just a little interesting?
Let me ask you this… in being baptized in Jesus’ name, what do you feel you have accomplished? Do you think that this somehow saved you? If so then why? If you believe that being baptized in Jesus’ name is necessary for salvation then wouldn’t that be adding something to Christ’s work on the cross? If the author of Hebrews is correct and Jesus really was a perfect sacrifice then why would you feel the need to add something to his work?
I have another question for you… in all those years you believed in the Trinity, did you believe that you were saved? If yes, then at the time could you have truly said that you were saved? But if now you realize that you were deceived then what is to give you an assurance that you aren’t deceived now? What if in another 7 years a Muslim convinces you that Islam is the truth and those oneness Pentecostals were lying to you for all those years? Will you then be able to truly say you are saved?
In closing, I pray in all sincerity that you will repent of your current belief and return to the faith that you once held. The Trinity is foundational and without it everything else crumbles. I also pray that you do not preach this message that you currently believe because as Paul said:
I don’t wish that for you Peter — I truly desire the salvation of your soul.
1 Tim 3:16!
uhh… ok? :|
if matt was written after acts then why were they baptising in “Jesus” name in acts? cuz the name of the Father Son Holy Ghost is Jesus. By the way, What’s the Holy Ghosts’ name? Father = YHWH, Son = Jesus, Holy Ghost = ?
Jeremiah,
If you read all of the comments then you will see that I have already said:
Acts doesn’t give us any baptismal formula — It never tells us what the apostles SAID as they baptized new converts.
Also, God’s name is Yahweh — that includes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the name of the Son incarnate.
I would ask that you read my comment to Peter and consider what was said — this is a matter of salvation and I don’t want to see anyone perish worshipping the idol of oneness Pentecostalism — there’s still time to repent.
Be well…
I believe that by accepting the Trinity you have wandered off into myths. I believe God is one. I’m not a UPC. Im not a member of any denomination, or cult. Dont judge a brother, love a brother. You have to ask yourself, How you got to where you are in your belief. Doubt, like faith has a role to play.I take the Bible the way I do because Ive been dilligent in my study, and I know I will be rewarded for it. I could post a bunch of intellectual babble on this page if I wanted to, but I prefer to keep it down to earth. If you wanna call me a heresy, then I guess Im a heresy cuz i dont believe like everybody else. I look forward to your rebuttle. : )
your answer to John 1, Gods word was no more apart from Him as Your word is from you. Rev 13 :8, the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth. i think i quoted that correctly. It was with God cuz it was in God and it Was God. It was Gods plan from the beginning.
Jeremiah,
Just a few things…
1. The Trinity is not a myth — Please take the time to go through the material on this blog and see all of the support for the Trinity from the Bible.
2. I believe that God is One — One GOD — Not one PERSON.
3. You might not be a member of the UPC but you worship the same god that they do and I’m afraid that such a god doesn’t exist outisde of your imagination.
4. I know this may sound cruel, but because you deny the Trinity you are not my brother — and I do love you, that’s why I’m telling you the truth.
5. In regard to John 1 I would just point out that I never said the Word was apart from God (I don’t believe there is any separation in God) — I said that the Word was PERSONALLY DISTINCT from God. I can get into all the details of Greek grammar here if you need me to but just for the time being I’ll mention that John doesn’t use Logos to mean plan as it seems you are suggesting.
But since you brought up the Lamb in Revelation, don’t you find it interesting how we see the Lamb AND God BOTH sitting on the throne (Rev. 5:13)? I’m sure you can see the distinction between the two persons (Rev. 6:16; 7:10, 17; 14:1, 4; 21:22; 22:1, 3).
Other versesin Revelation confirms that “Lamb” is not a different person from God.22:1,3 says THE Throne of God and of the Lamb that refers to the the One throne of 4:2 and 5:1.After mentioning “God and the Lamb”,Revelation 22:3 goes on to talk about “his servants”,and v 4 refers to “his face” and “his name.”The Lamb and the glory of God light the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:23), yet the Lord God is the Light (Rev22:5). so, “God and the Lamb” is one being. The phrase refers to Jesus Christ and designates His dual nature. Its just symbolism…
I want you to think about what you just said. You recognize that God AND the Lamb are BOTH spoken of WITH each other yet claim that they are dual natures. Ask yourself if that really makes sense.
Here’s the problem with your view. Even if we take the language as mere symbolism (and nothing else) and say that Lamb refers to the human nature and God refers to the divine nature you are applying PERSONAL characteristics to each nature. Essentially, you treat each nature as a person which ends up dividing Jesus into two persons — This is the heresy of Nestorianism.
I would also note that I’m not contending for two thrones — The Father (God) and the Son (the Lamb) SHARE the one throne. I would also point out that as a Trinitarian I don’t deny that “God and the Lamb is one being” — I only deny that they are one person.
Again, I would ask you to review the material on this site. I have taken the time to define my terms Here. Trinitarians believe that there is one and only one God who exists as three Persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is no division of nature/being/essence but there is an eternal distinction in Person.
person? is that scripure? If Jesus is the Fathers son, then what is the Holy Ghost? His uncle, Cousin, or what? You are correct there is only one on the throne.The lion, the root, and the Lamb all represent in symbolic form the characteristics and qualifications of the One worthy to open the seals of the book.The lion tells us he’s the king from the tribe of judah. the root tells us Hes the Creator. The Lamb tells us He is God incarnate and our sacrifice.It is only in this last role that He can be our Redeemer and can open the book. Revelation teaches there is one God and this one God came in flesh as the Lamb (the Son) to reveal Himself to us and to redeem us from sin.
God cannot be responsible for human mistakes, It’s not Gods fault that “later” manmade doctrines have twisted the meaning of scripture out of context. Cant we atleast agree that Revelation is symbolic? I mean Did John see one God on the throne and a real Lamb near the throne?
What do you mean by:
Are you asking if the word person is a term found in Scripture? Are you asking if what the term describes accords with Scripture? I would say absolutely to the latter.
Person is a term that describes those with intelligence, rationality, self-consciousness, and emotion. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have these characteristics in distinction from one another.
You said:
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Mat. 10:20) as well as the Spirit of his Son (Gal. 4:6). See also Romans 8:9.
As far as your interpretation of Revelation goes, I’m less than convinced — and we can agree that parts of the book of Revelation are symbolic. I certainly don’t believe that Jesus is a literal Lamb but there’s no way to support an interpretation that the Lamb is somehow the last of successive roles that God plays.
And in regard to your last question — John saw two persons in heaven (God & the Lamb). Does this mean he physically saw them? Of course not — no one has seen the Father at any time (Jo. 1:18; 6:46) but we know that John was in the spirit (Rev. 1:10) and this was the revelation that the Lord gave to him (Rev. 1:1).
One last thing… please… please… I beg you — stop talking about one God as if I believe in anything other than one God!!! It seems to be that those who hold your position are incapable of seeing that Trinitarians are MONOTHEISTIC — We DO NOT believe in more than one God — ok? ;)
okay, explain to me, how can there be three distinct persons and yet only one God? And also tell me how can one be subordinate yet be co equal, if you say its a distinction between the eternal God and the man Christ, iwould agree.
AS a Trintarian you must admit the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity… We could go on and on for years debating each other, but the fact is that im just as firm in my belief as you are in yours. With that being said, I wish you the best bro. Its been a pleasure, and i appreciate your hospitality. oh and get a girlfriend! lol jk.
How it works is beyond my scope. I can’t tell you how God is what he is — I can only tell you that he is. Concerning the co-equal issue I can answer that one — The Father and Son are essentially co-equal meaning that they share the same essence/being/nature — but the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father.
As a Trinitarian I will admit that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity in Nicene/Post-Nicene terms — I’ll quote R.P.C. Hanson who said:
But Scripture everywhere shows us the Trinity in everything from creation to salvation. The Trinity was experienced by the earliest Christians and the doctrine articulated by later generations.
I understand that you’re firm in your beliefs but I pray that you would repent of them. Again, please take the time to read over the material on the Trinity I have on this blog. And you can find an extensive list of books, articles, and audio recordings Here.
The doctrine of the Trinity is much better than other concepts suggested in the past. But only the truth is perfect. Hopefully, a better understanding as to the nature and mode of these relationships will translate into an improved relationship between us and God…
Thnx, Jeremiah
this oneness thing isn’t a thing to arque on. the bible straightly tell us that god manifested in the flesh and every one of us witnessed that Jesus is the only one God.
Regarding Cook, sometimes uneducated Christians make the best ones. We are not called to dispute doctrines with hard hearted apostates and liars, but rather to preach and live the gospel through faith and allow God Himself to win converts using our humble obedience to him. Let Bernard continue to be wise in his own conceits on the wide road to destruction lest he repent (which we should pray for!) and let Cook continue to preach with simple foolishness the humiliation of the cross. I should point out that one of two of the best screeds against oneness pentecostalism come from two very learned men that teach at elite universities, including former oneness pentecostal Greg Boyd who is now a Princeton professor. But alas, Boyd and Fudge are both open theists! It seems that they spurned one false doctrine for another! So then, what was gained by their excellent theological training?
Now of course, I am a huge advocate of formal theological education, Paul benefited from it greatly! But we have to remember the purpose of our education: to glorify God and not to become more equipped to answer fools after their folly.
David: Excuse my short response, I have a terrible headache at the moment.
(1) That’s not a contradiction. A contradiction is asserting that A is non-A at the same time and in the same sense.
(2) Label what pejoratively? Oneness theology? Have I done so? If so, where? What does a pejorative label of Oneness theology look like? I’m a bit confused by that.
(3) Tertullian’s, Athanasius’, and Augustine’s doctrines of the Trinity were not ‘mutually exclusive’ — they were nuanced differently, but not mutually exclusive. And to answer your question, any doctrine of the Trinity that preserves the consubstantiality and eternal distinction of the three persons is adequate to not be heretical. The Niceno-Constantinoplitan Creed is a good guideline.
(4) Yes, the formal doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly laid out in Scripture, because the formal doctrine of the Trinity is a means of explaining what is explicitly laid out in Scripture. And I’m not concerned with ‘trinitarians’ who say that the doctrine of the Trinity is ‘not logical’ — I am not one such Trinitarian. I see no inherent contradiction in the doctrine.
(5) The only God that shows grace and develops relationships is the triune God. God is relational with God’s creation because God is relational in Godself.
(6) What you call ‘legalistic/Pharisaical’ I call essential. If we can worship any god that we create in our imaginations then there is no idolatry. I don’t deny that God alone saves, I only affirm that it is the triune God who alone saves.
(7) I don’t see espousing heresy as evidence of the Spirit working in peoples’ lives. And if piety is what you’re talking about then I have to go on and say that every pious Muslim, Jehovah’s Witness, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, and Mormon is saved.
(8 ) Their belief isn’t in God, it’s in another. That belief is error because it is in a god that cannot save them.
(9) If you really get into Oneness theology, there’s nothing simple about it. It’s more difficult to explain how Jesus can be treated as two persons (Father & Son), one divine, one human, and yet be one person. It’s more difficult to explain how Oneness theology isn’t Nestorian in its understanding of the person of Christ. It’s more difficult to explain how the distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit are merely distinctions in role and not person.
(10) Oh, I can describe God, in as far as God has described himself. How God is what he is, simply isn’t something that he chose to reveal. A Oneness believer can no more explain how God is one, than a Trinitarian can explain how God is one (and three).
Nick, I just saw your website and am a bit amazed at the contradictions of your own posts. You state quite clearly about the Trinity that your knowing “How [the Godhead] works is beyond my scope. I can’t tell you how God is what he is — I can only tell you that he is.”
You then state, concerning the evoloution of the formal doctrine of the trinity that “Scripture everywhere shows us the Trinity in everything from creation to salvation. The Trinity was experienced by the earliest Christians and the doctrine articulated by later generations” as if to assure the reader you’re right.
I’ve a question concerning the implicit facts of the last statement which contradicts your first. If Oneness theology is in error (please don’t label it pejoratively), which of the several distinct and mutually exclusive doctrines of the Trinity must one believe without being a heretic? Tertullian’s? Athanasius?’ Augustine’s? Or one of the trinity doctrines defined and adhered to in between the one that is most currently in vogue?
As you realize, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly spelled out in the scripture (i.e., as it is articulated by trinitarian scholarship), and even Trinitarian’s admit that it is not logical and one must take it by faith– Karnack (a highly respected trinitarian theologian) went so far as to say one could not extrapolate it from the Scripture alone– why must one believe the formal doctrine of the Trinity to be considered Christian in your eyes, when God has already shown His grace on them and has a relationship with them?
I think God’s grace is enough, and his working through them is evidence of his acceptance. It seems to me to hold to the rigid and legalistic/Pharisaical litmus test that you advocate is to deny the fact that God’s grace is at work, and that He alone is the one who saves. If God’s Grace and Spirit is at work in the life of one who embraces oneness theology (i.e., one who acknowledges God’s monothiesm, as trinitarians do, one who acknowledges the dual nature of Christ, 100% man/100% God, as trinitarians do, and one who is in relationship with Him by the evidence of His spirit working in their lives), who are you– or anyone else– to say that God does accept them and has not saved them by His grace? To say that their belief in Him is in error? After all, if you can’t describe God or how he works, why call a oneness believer who chooses a simpler method of trying to understand the incomprehensible– the terrible and mysterious God Almighty?
Correction– that last sentence of the last paragraph should read:
After all, if you can’t describe God or how he works, why call a oneness believer who chooses a simpler method of trying to understand the incomprehensible–-the terrible and mysterious God Almighty–in error/sin that one should repent of?
BTW, who is Karnack? I’ve never heard of him/her. I thought at first you meant (Adolf von) Harnack, but I don’t know that he could be called a trinitarian in any proper sense of the term.
Hope your head-ache is gone. Not too sure we learned the same language– short means something mighty different than the long post I reviewed! :)
To the point, here’s my comments:
Concerning (1): I think the point is moot, and not worth pursuing, as they don’t mean a great deal in the overall scheme of things. However, so that you understand the perspective that your statements may lead one to believe, they do, on their face, seem self-contradictory. The A being “How [the Godhead] works is beyond my scope”, and the non-A is ““Scripture everywhere shows us the Trinity”. If you are saying that the Bible shows us the Trinity, then you are showing how the Godhead works. Either you 1) cannot show how the Godhead works and thus can’t explain the Trinity, or 2) you can show how the Godhead works and can thus explain the Trinity. The only way out of this is to say that explaining the Trinity is not showing how the Godhead works– to explain the Trinity is to explain how the Godhead exists/works. If it is not, then it is pure conjecture, and thus not a necessary doctrine.
Concerning (2): I saw it in previous posts. Thank you for not labeling Oneness something that is based on opposing observations (for example, if we were to rely on the Howard Dean of the DNC to describe the political platform of John McCain, my, everyone would agree that Mr. McCain was the devil incarnate. Likewise, to rely on opponents of Sabellius or Praxeus for a fair interpretation or description of their views would be falling into the same error. Using the label sabellianism, for example, would be a pejorative label. Thank you for not using it.
Concerning (3): I think that’s really a cop-out (terming it nuance), but it’s your choice to adhere to. I think that when one examines the several mutually-exclusive trinitarian doctrines, the logic employed behind many seem contradictory, and the term nuance, cannot be applied, unless you wish to expand nuance to a larger set of descriptors, such as the numeral three when talking about the Godhead. One might argue that Tertullian’s was heretical, as he made no real mention of the Holy Spirit in terms of the Godhead and focused his expositions upon the Son and the Father while mentioning in passing the Holy Spirit.
Concerning (4): Which Trinity doctrine do you believe in then? The Three distinct persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existence in the one substance of God? And which one doesn’t incorporate the Dual Nature of Christ?
Concerning (5): Oneness theology does not argue that God has not revealed himself in a triune manner (i.e., Father in Creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in sanctification). It rejects extra-scriptural language that would take the only Living God and declare him three personalities (which is not found explicitly, nor implicitly, in Scripture, unless one has a predefined understanding). Oneness theology accepts God as God, who has revealed himself in different ways to man (as Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter).
Concerning (6): To adhere to a doctrine that is self-evidently extra-scripturally based and to exclude the very thought of questioning it without really reasoning about it falls within the realm of legalistic and Pharisaical. Oneness theology is not simply a god that was created with imagination. It is a very strict interpretation of the Holy Scriptures which rejects extra-scriptural interpretations by the many writings of the ‘Church Fathers’, who, in most cases, were Greek philosophers. Consider the quote from Gregory of Nyssa– “the Jewish doctrine is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality”. From this account, and many others, it is quite obvious that the writings from which the doctrine of the Trinity is extracted and described used extra-scriptural thought and philosophy, a clear violation of Colossians 2:8 (which incidentally is right before the scripture that declares Jesus as being full of the entire Godhead, Col. 2:9– I don’t think this is coincidental). To affirm that God is triune is not a problem. To insist that He is one substance that houses three different personalities is.
Concerning (7) & (8): For those who have not come into relationship with Jesus Christ, that is correct. Works and piety don’t save, and they don’t produce supernatural changes in a person’s life. Only Jesus Christ, the God of all creation, does. For you to suggest that Believers who adhere to Oneness theology, who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who have repented of their sins, and have been baptized in His name are unbelievers is a bit too arrogant a statement to assume that you may be making. If you were, I would refer you back to the topic of being Pharisaical and the folly of calling the Righteous works of God as those of the devil. I don’t want this statement to come across as offensive, so please choose to understand it in the manner in which it was written– with charity.
Concerning (9): Actually, you cannot be more incorrect; and your terminology demonstrates a lack of understanding of Oneness theology. The very fact that you are using ‘persons’ in the trinitarian dogmatic sense seems to imply that you are trying to apply those unique terms where they do not fit (i.e., using the term Father, and the term Son as two persons). The Dual Nature does not say Father and Son, it says God and Son. Any criticism you apply to the Dual Nature of Christ applies to the Trinity’s 2nd Person when speaking to his human nature and his spirit nature.
Furthermore, unless you adhere to some aberent theology of the Trinity, your criticism couldn’t be more wrong. Being a student in a Trinitarian university (Liberty University), I can personally attest to this fact that Trinitarian doctrine wholly subscribes to the Dual Nature of Christ, as it was a topic in a couple of the classes I’ve so far had. In fact, if you reject the belief in the Dual Nature of Christ as unorthodox or non-trinitarian, you have indicted not only one of the largest protestant Trinitarian denominations as non-orthodox Trinitarian, but also the well from which the doctrine of the Trinity flows from– the Catholic Church. The fact is that the doctrine of the Trinity wholly affirms the Dual Nature which is also held by Oneness theology– that Jesus Christ was the visible image of the invisible God. Oneness theology leaves it at that; trinity theology interprets God as a 2nd person.
Concerning (10): I agree. But the Trinitarian takes a step further and describes God with extra-scriptural terminology and definitions, whereas a Oneness Believer chooses to be silent where the Bible is silent, and point to the Bible where it speaks. “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord”, Duet. 6:4; “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Rev. 1:8; “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last; I, Jesus…give you this testimony”, Rev. 22:13-16
Kindest regards,
David
P.S. – Yes, Harnack. Yes, he was a trinitarian; No he wasn’t a conservative, but he was a well respected church historian. We can call this moot too.
David: Yes, the headache is gone, thank God. I thought it would be shorter when I started out, but still, one or two sentences in response to every point you raised isn’t that long. Anyway…
(1) I don’t know how cell phones work. I cannot explain how I can be in NJ talking to my cousin who is in FL on a cell phone, but I can that you that we talk to each other. I can explain that when I dial the number I hear ringing and he picks up and then I hear his voice. There’s no contradiction in that.
(2) I don’t think it pejorative to use the label Sabellianism if it’s accurate. I recognize that modern Oneness theology is nuanced differently than Sabellian’s particular brand of modalism though (at least what we know of it from his opponents). But have you read anything that would lead you to believe that Noetus or Sabellius were not represented properly? Of course it’s possible, but I don’t know that there’s any evidence that this was really the case.
(3) You’re going to have to move past the assertion of mutual exclusivity and actualy demonstrate it. Were their understandings different? Sure. Tertullian wrote a century before Athanasius and Augustine, I wouldn’t expect him to be as developed in his understanding as they were. Just like I wouldn’t expect a high school student to be as developed as a graduate student.
And Tertullian made some pretty explicit statements regarding the Holy Spirit, so I don’t know that we could charge him with heresy for not emphasizing the Spirit. If we were to do that, then we’d have to indict the Bible as well, since the Spirit definitely takes a back seat to the Father and Son.
(4) I affirm both the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Symbol of Chalcedon. The Hypostatic Union doesn’t fall into the Trinity proper, that would fall into Christology. But I don’t understand the question, what Trinitarian do you know of that doesn’t affirm the dual natures of Christ?
(5) First of all, Oneness theology employs ‘extra-scriptural’ language as well, but so what? The debate is over what the Bible says. If everyone is using the language of Scripture to say something different, then extra-scriptural terms are going to have to be employed for clarification. I quoted Hanson to that effect above.
(6) That assumes that Trinitarians don’t question the doctrine they believe. Why assume that? Because ultimately we don’t agree with you? I’ve questioned the doctrine of the Trinity every day for nearly the last 6 years, and I’m more resolute in my belief than ever because I’ve done so.
And Oneness theology relies on a very convoluted interpretation of Scripture, not a ‘strict’ one. Any theology that would make the Son the Father as well, is convoluted, no matter how you wish to defend it. And please, don’t be misled into thinking that because many of the Church Fathers used Greek philosophical terms and categories that they were using Greek philosophy. There usually came a redfining of these terms and categories in the context of the Christian faith. But I would also point out that there is nothing at all Jewish about Oneness theology. Any (orthodox) Jew would reject Oneness theology as quickly as they would reject Trinitarianism.
(7) & (8 ) But now you’re back to piety. Mormons and JWs are pious as well. They do plenty of good works, are nice to people, etc. They believe in Jesus, in his death, burial, resurrection. They both believe that Jesus is divine, although define that differently than Oneness believers do, and they have also been baptized. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can honestly expect me, as a Trinitarian, to say or believe that those who worship and god that is not the same God that I worship, have actually come into relationship with him. If someone describes a God that is radically different than yours, are you going to be so charitable as to say that it is the same God?
(9) There isn’t anything simple about Oneness theology. It is difficult to explain how Jesus is both Father and Son. Just saying that the Father is the deity and the Son is the humanity doesn’t somehow make that a simple explanation. But I am certainly correct in that Oneness believers treat each nature of Christ in a personal manner. The human nature (Son) prays to the divine nature (Father). The human nature (Son) was sent by the divine nature (Father). So on and so forth. But the problem is that natures don’t pray/receive prayer, and send/go, persons do. Oneness theology when taken to its logical ends devolves into a Nestorian Christology.
As far as the dual natures of Christ is concerned in Trinitarian theology, of course we affirm it! The second person of the Trinity took upon himself the form of a servant in order to ultimately die and be resurrected to life. But because we make the personal distinction between Father and Son, we don’t fall into the same trap that Oneness believers do with regard to this doctrine. We recognize that one person prays to another person, one person sent another person, etc. The natures aren’t the persons/
(10) But ‘oneness’ is extra-Biblical. ‘Monarchianism’ is extra-biblical. ‘Father in creation, Son in redemption, Spirit in regeneration’ is an extra-biblical formulation (we see all three persons involved in all three economic acts in Scripture). There’s no Biblical definition of the Father as the ‘divine nature of Jesus’ and the Son as the ‘human nature of Jesus.’ Like I said above, if we ever want to get anywhere in an argument over what the Bible says, we’re going to have to use language that isn’t in the Bible.
Be well.
And I’ll have to give Harnack another read, because upon first reading, I don’t know that I could call him a Trinitarian with any confidence. But yes, it’s moot either way.
you said in acts2:38 it means authority not name why deosn’t it say authority. mathew 28:19 he said father, son ,holy ghost. why didn’t they just say that as Jesus said to. Actually they baptized in that name not”auothority” all through the new testement. Never once did the say father son, holy ghost.In acts it says name it means name,like no other name under heavenb given among men where by we must be saved. is that name they are refering to father, son ,holyghost, if so it should have been wrote as names not name. Jesus also said if you ask anything in my name I will do it. Was he refering to the “authority” or father ,son, holy ghost. I think he meant his name since he said my name also like the apostles who baptized in that name. On the God head I read all the comments from above and it’s a big debate that will never end .
you also said that you serve another God than oneness we serve Jesus Christ. You serve somebody diffrent that’s scary your right then we aren’t brothers in christ since you said you serve a diffrent God. And the jewish people beleive in Jesus but they don’t believe he was the messiah we do
I’ll leave you alone after this, I read you bashing bro. bernard, since he is wrong and you seem to think you know more, would you like to have a debate with bro.bernard?
Dustin: I’ve addressed the ‘name’ issue in the above comments. Please read them. And it doesn’t say ‘authority’ because Luke wasn’t writing to satisfy your modern sensibilities. Name = Authority in the ancient world. To do something in someone’s name was to do it with their authority. Any book on Bible backgrounds will tell you as much (but simply reading the Bible yields the same conclusion).
You serve a completely different Jesus than I do. My Jesus is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. My Jesus is the eternal Word incarnate. My Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Your Jesus is the Father and the Son. Your Jesus is not my Jesus. So no, we are not brothers. If you would repent of your heretical beliefs and embrace historic Christianity then we could be. I pray that this will happen.
Thank you for leaving me alone, honestly, I haven’t found your comments productive. I don’t appreciate being charged with bashing Bernard simply because I disagree with him and think he is wrong. I also don’t understand how you could charge me with bashing if you had honestly read the post. I said that Bernard won the debate.
Would I like to debate Bernard? Not really. Should I want to debate him? Would that be something that you could even set up if I was interested? What was your reason for asking? I have my suspicions, but I don’t want to publicly speculate.
In any event, I pray that you honor your above comment about leaving me alone. Unlike other Oneness believers who comment here, I have found you rather bothersome. Thank you.
Hello! I haven’t read all of the comments, so if I’m redundant, I beg your pardon.
Your critique of Bernard’s debating skills appears based upon your disagreement with his theology. A person can be a very good debater even if s/he’s articulating something false. For example, I believe Walter Martin did a very good job debating Robert Sabin & Nathaniel Urshan, even though I disagree with just about everything Martin argued.
David Bernard is very articulate and is excellent at debate (this is not his sole effort). If he doesn’t do a good job defending Oneness theology, then who does?
Best wishes,
Scalia
Scalia: I think you might have misunderstood me. In the post itself I said that Bernard won the debate. I believe that he out-debated Cook. In a recent comment on another post I also said that I think Bernard is a great speaker. When I said that I wasn’t impressed with him above, I was referring to his arguments. I can think of any number of Trinitarians who would have faired better than Cook in this debate. But I believe that Bernard is probably the best representative of the Oneness position that’s out there right now. Hope that clears things up.
Nick, I certainly don’t want to nitpick and I accept your clarification. However, I think you can see why I would get a different impression.
“…I’m not impressed with either;” and, “…his opponent was a worse debator [sic] than he was.”
The first comment can be taken as a reference to Bernard’s arguments, but not the second. Be that as it may, you’ve adequately cleared things up and I thank you for taking the time to do so.
Thanks also for the link to your other comments about Bernard. You say he’s a terrible writer. How so? Perhaps you’re not aware of this, but his writings are not aimed at scholars. He’s stated several times that he purposely writes so that “lay persons” can access the concepts he articulates. Apart from disagreeing with his theology, I cannot see why his writings are “terrible.” Any clarification?
Also, you say the Persons of the Trinity cannot be separated (hence, the Scriptural references to the Father and the Spirit being in Christ). Since none of the Persons can cease being God (a contradiction), Christ never lost His omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence at the incarnation. *Who* then was praying during Christ’s earthly ministry? Since God the Son does not need to pray and since God the Son could could never cease to be God (a necessary being must always be), *who* was praying? Of course, we don’t have Jesus #1 and Jesus #2, do we?
Kind regards,
Scalia
Scalia: I understand how you could have thought that, but even the second reference had to do with Bernard’s arguments, and not his rhetorical skill. I said, “Bernard won the debate with a false doctrine and a terrible understanding of the nature and persons of God.” Then followed that with the comment about Cook being a worse debator. In any event, I think Bernard is a fine speaker.
If you continue in that comments thread I clarify my reasons for believing that as being his penchant for repetition. In his book The Oneness of God he says the same thing over and over, sometimes repeating something two or three times in one sentence. It’s terribly annoying.
In reference to the Son praying, the answer is that the Son prayed (to the Father). The incarnation was all about the Son humbling himself and becoming a man. The Son never ceased being God, but he did willingly lay aside certain divine prerogatives. I think this is the clear teaching of Philippians 2:6-8. I’m not sure about your point regarding God the Son not ‘needing’ to pray. Whether or not it was necessary, we have to acknowledge that he did pray.
Hope that answers your question.
Nick, God, as such, does not pray. What is the purpose of prayer? We certainly pray as supplicants in need of something. God doesn’t need *anything*. You say God the Son set aside “certain prerogatives.” Please be specific. God the Son set aside omnipresence? If so, then the Persons of the Trinity can be separated. You cannot confine one Person to spatial coordinates while the others continue to transcend the same and maintain complete unity. Omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are NECESSARY attributes of divinity. God the Son erased His knowledge? He did not know the hour of His coming, He increased in wisdom and stature, and He *learned* obedience. At best, this is inconsistent.
Let’s look at I Timothy 2:5 – “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
Paul is speaking present tense. The mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus. What about the God Christ Jesus? Is not Jesus included in the one God to Whom we are reconciled? Are we not reconciled to God the Son as well as the Father and the Holy Spirit? If not, why not? If so, we have Jesus functioning simultaneously as God and as mediator.
Please explain.
Scalia: I’d prefer you to address Philippians 2:6-8 before brushing it aside to ask me more questions. Thank you.
Nick, I wasn’t brushing aside that passage. You never asked me to comment on it. You used it as a reference and I’m perfectly aware what it says. My questions are probing you how you reconcile your belief in the Trinity with the rest of the Bible and what it says about the nature of God.
“Power,” in the universal sense, relates to usable energy. A Being transcending the universe would be infinitely “mighty.” This, as well as God’s other attributes, is what makes God, God. God can no more lay aside Almightiness any more than He can sin.
So, please answer my questions. How can God continue to be God and strip Himself of what makes Him God? A necessary being is a must be, not a can be. There is no potential in God whatsoever. He is pure actuality, else He would not be God.
Scalia: Philippians 2:6-8 is the answer. He willingly humbled himself and took upon himself the form of a man (i.e., a human nature). He operated according to his human nature while incarnate. This does not necessitate or even suggest that the Son ceased being God or possessing the attributes of deity, he simply chose not to exploit them. In fact, in Philippians 2:6, Paul uses the present, active, participle ὑπάρχων in saying that Jesus was ‘existing/being’ in the form of God.
So to simplify, the Person of the Son possessed two Natures (divine & human). Because of this it would be a mistake to charge the incarnate Son with ceasing to be God simply because he acted according to his human nature. This is the mistake that you have made, I believe.
Now, I don’t mind dialogue, but let’s be very clear, this is my blog. If I don’t feel like answering a million and one questions, then I won’t. I also think that you have Aristotle confused for the Bible, because your reading of the Bible sounds strangely Aristotelian.
So I will ask for your understanding of Philippians 2:6-8 one more time, and then this conversation will cease until further notice. Thanks.
I’ve also addressed a similar question here.
Thanks, Nick. I’ll have to pause for now because I have a pressing appointment. Your latest post at least approximates what I’m trying to get at. In fact, your explanation of the Person of the Son is indistinct from Oneness theology. I’ll explain later.
Also, I realize this is your blog and if I’ve been in any manner disrespectful, I apologize. The only reason I stopped “here” instead of a zillion other blogs is because you sound like somebody who’s put a lot of thought into what you believe. I think our dialog can be a fruitful exercise in more fully understanding our differences (as well as challenging certain presuppositions).
Till later, best wishes,
Scalia
Scalia: Perhaps if left unqualified it would be indistinct. But of course I don’t believe that the divine nature = the Father and the human nature = the Son. The Son in Trinitarian theology is an eternal person who equally shares the divine nature with the Father and Holy Spirit. He added humanity to his deity in the incarnation.
And I don’t think you were disrespectful, but you did come across as if you felt entitled to answers to your questions. I don’t mind answering questions to a degree, but I’m not obligated, nor do I feel inclined to, answer question after question.
I strongly recommend searching through the various posts I have written in the ‘Oneness Pentecostal’ and ‘Trinity’ categories on the sidebar above. That will give you a lot more insight into what I believe.
Be well…
Hello, Nick! There’s a little ground to cover, but again, I thank you for the links and for your replies. I fully understand you are under no obligation to reply to any of my posts or to answer any of my questions. As will be evident, my questions are an attempt to elicit replies which demonstrate your theology is really indistinct from Oneness with respect to Christ’s prayers.
A quick word about Aristotle: Even a dead clock is right twice a day. God’s transcendence and immutability are Scriptural and such concepts have no significant scholarly opposition. God cannot be eternal and contingent. Such concepts are mutually exclusive. The same goes with His other attributes.
I’ve glanced at your Trinity and Oneness Pentecostal sections. I prefer, at this time, to focus on our current discussion rather than wade through material not directly germane to this topic. I will, however, read whatever link you provide in response to my comments.
Your description of the incarnation is identical to ours with the obvious exception being your belief in a three-person Godhead. You also confirm that the Second Person retained His omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence at the incarnation. Implicit in your statement that He “chose not to exploit them” (His divine attributes), is that He chose not to exploit them *in the flesh*, or in His humanity. Of course, if I’m mistaken in this regard, you’ll correct me; but in doing so, I think you’ll be under a rational obligation to explain how God, in His divinity, can cease to function as God and still be God.
This brings us back to square one. The Second Person is as much God as the First and the Third are. The Second Person, because He is God, does not grow weary and does not need food. Since He is almighty, He needs no help. When Jesus prayed, God the Son had already filled the heaven & earth and was upholding all things by the word of His power. Your belief is that the Second Person prayed by acting “according to his human nature” and “chose not to exploit” His divine attributes.
All this makes the Son of God as much dependent upon the Second and Third Persons as the First for His strength and help. This makes the Second Person praying AS IF He needed help when in fact He needed no such thing. You have almighty God (2nd Person) praying to almighty God (1st Person) and never to the Third Person. Does this not reduce the prayers of the Second Person to a mere show? Why not? Remember, you’ve said He never ceased being God; He only chose not to exercise His attributes in the flesh. If He ceased being God as the Second Person (a supplicant) then He was never God in the first place.
Against this, of course, some Trinitarians have replied that the Second Person prayed in His humanity in distinction to His divinity; but if that is the case, then they are acknowledging that God the Son can function as the Almighty SIMULTANEOUS to the voluntary humility of the incarnation (Philippians 2). If He can pray – genuinely pray – as a supplicant in the flesh, while simultaneously existing as Almighty God, then Trinitarianism is not obligatory. As I pointed out in I Timothy 2:5, God the Son can be both Mediator and “Mediatee” simultaneously.
This is why your theology, in this regard, is indistinct from Oneness theology. We interpret Philippians 2 exactly the way you do with the obvious exception that three Persons are not required to fulfill that passage. As Jason Dulle observes, “If God the Son could be omnipresent as Spirit, and limited in the incarnation simultaneously, without being two persons, why can’t the Father become a man, and yet still exist beyond the incarnation, and not be two persons?”
Dulle goes on to say, “But then how can ‘God manifested in flesh’ still pray to ‘God as Spirit’ without making a mere show of prayer? I don’t claim to have a perfect answer, as nobody would, including Trinitarians. They need to wrestle with the reason God the Son would pray to God the Father if both are co-equal. What need does God the Son have of prayer? One only prays to their superior, and one they need dependence on. Trinitarians answer this by claiming a functional subordination in the incarnation. I agree with such an explanation. Jesus, because He was a man, needed to pray. It was not deity praying to deity, but the Son of God, a genuine human being, praying to God as He exists outside of a human existence. Although this is difficult for us to comprehend, it must be understood in light of God’s kenosis (Philippians 2:6-11). God willing[ly] limited the exercise of His divine abilities in order to experience all that we experience as limited human beings. In this capacity, although ontologically Jesus was God, functionally He was a man dependent on the Holy Spirit.”
Best wishes,
Scalia
Scalia: I’ll number my responses to correspond to your paragraphs, and I will be as brief as possible.
(1) I don’t necessarily have a problem with Aristotelian thought, but for as much as Oneness believers accuse Trinitarians of relying on the philosophies of men because we use certain Greek philosophical terms and categories, I just found it quite ironic to see a Oneness believer employing Aristotelian categories and language, and calling it what the Bible says.
(2) That’s fine.
(3) Correct, but the obvious exception is the sticking point, isn’t it?
(4) The second Person, once incarnate, did grow weary, need food, and help. The addition of humanity brought all that humanity entails.
(5) The Son is the second Person, so I’m a bit lost by the first sentence of this paragraph. And I see no violence in the humiliated Son praying to the Father for the same reason that I see no problem with the humiliated Son eating or sleeping. The addition of a human nature and all that comes with it doesn’t affect the nature of deity (as I’ve said before). Again, I think it is a mistake to charge the Son with ceasing to be God because he acts according to his humanity. I still haven’t seen a compelling reason on your part to understand it in this way.
You assert that the “Second Person pray[s] AS IF He needed help when in fact He needed no such thing”, but where have you established this as fact? The incarnate Son certainly needed help. The Son can in one sense need help, while not needing it in another sense.
Also, I don’t understand exactly what you mean by “mere show.” I suppose that whatever you mean is contingent upon me accepting your premise that the Son needs nothing, but I reject that premise on the basis of the incarnation. Also, what significance is there in the Son praying to the Father and not the Spirit? How exactly does that factor in to your claim of his prayer being a “mere show”?
(6) Whatever Jesus does, Jesus does. He acts according to (or in accordance with) one nature or the other, but it is always the God-Man acting. How does it follow that Trinitarianism is not obligatory from your understanding of 1Timothy 2:5? (which consequently I do not share).
(7) My concern is not the Father’s ability or inability to become a man. The question isn’t could he have done so, it’s did he? Nothing in Scripture leads me to believe that he did. We have no statements to the effect that the Father became incarnate. Nothing to suggest that the Father humbled himself to die and rise again. But everything suggests (or rather explicitly states) that the Son did this
(8 ) I don’t have much disagreement with Dulle on this point. One disagreement is in saying that “it was not deity praying to deity” — I can’t accept this for the fact that within the Person of Jesus there are united two Natures. The Natures don’t act, the Person does. So as I said above, whatever Jesus does, Jesus does. He may do certain things according to (or in accordance with) either nature, but it is him that acts.
Also, just to clarify my position in distinction from other Trinitarians, I believe that the Son has been functionally subordinate to the Father for all eternity, not only in the incarnation. But since function doesn’t impede being, there’s no violence done to the consubstantiality of the two.
And regarding the point about “God manifested in the flesh praying to God as Spirit,” let’s suppose that the Son’s prayers to the Father were a ”mere show”, what would be the inherent problem with such a position? I don’t really see the relevance of the point he’s trying to make (nor did I see it with you making the same point above).
Nick, there must be something askew with my communication skills because it appears we’re talking past one another. I take responsibility for this and will try again. The issues I raise are not new and the questions I ask have been asked time and again for a long time.
The link you provided me demonstrates you believe God the Son did not lose (or fail to exercise) His omnipresence at the incarnation. If that is the case, His “emptying” was not total. If He did divest Himself of nonspatiality, then the Persons of the Trinity can be separated, contrary to your belief.
Of course, He could not divest Himself of omnipresence and remain God (as I believe you acknowledge), hence, in His omnipresent state, He could not fail to be omnipotent or omniscient. These attributes are (among others) what makes God, God. He cannot “choose” to cease being omniscient any more than He can choose to sin. Consequently, to uphold all things by the word of His power, He had to continue exercising His omnipotence *during* the incarnation.
It appears you’re saying that God the Son chose not to exercise His divine prerogatives *in toto* during the incarnation. For the aforesaid reasons, this is clearly impossible. He cannot be God and lose his infinite knowledge and power. How do you choose not to exercise infinite knowledge? How can you uphold the universe when you’ve chosen not to exercise your almightiness for 3 1/2 years?
Many Trinitarians and Oneness believers are in complete agreement in this regard. The “divestment” or “emptying” was *in the flesh*. In other words, since it is impossible for the entire *quantity* of the Second Person to be contained in the body of Jesus, the self-imposed limitation only applied to that aspect of the Second Person (or God the Father for Oneness believers) within the body of Christ.
Now we come back to another point: We have God the Son praying as a dependent within the body of Christ, while not at all dependent in His omnipresent state. The only rational explanation for all this is that He prayed in His humanity and *not* in His divinity. The mind (and Spirit) of the Second Person was *both* within the body of Christ and in heaven during the incarnation (John 3:13).
The upshot of this is that the Trinitarian argument against Oneness boomerangs with respect to Christ’s prayers. God, in His divinity, cannot pray to God and still be God. The only consistent Scriptural solution is to say that the prayers were given in the limited context of His humanity in distinction to His divine state exterior to Christ’s body. If it is acknowledged the Second Person can simultaneously pray as a human dependent and exist as an unlimited divine being, then Trinitarianism is not obligatory, for the Oneness doctrine teaches the same.
I agree with you that many Apostolics have an irrational fear of philosophy. The warning from the Apostle Paul is with respect to any philosophy that steers one away from Christ.
Best wishes,
Scalia
Scalia: Your argument relies on a premise that I reject, so it doesn’t appear that we’re going to get anywhere. You keep saying that it is impossible for God to not excerise the omni-attributes, but that assertion fails to adequately account for the incarnation.
The answer to your “how” questions is: become incarnate. Humble yourself. Condescend to the level of humanity.
As for the rest, you seem to just be repeating yourself. In the interest of me not repeating myself I’ll just leave it alone.
scalia I was wondering if you had any suggestions of some oneness books that i can study
Did you notice in the debate that Pastor Cook agreed with the basic definition of the Oneness of God? Bernard asked if he agreed that God was revealed as the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Something to that effect and Cook said he saw no problem with that.
Nick You should go to youtube and watch the debate of Robert Sabin and Dr. Martin. It is an old debate that was on a trinitarian talk show. It was pretty good.
Also to respond to a comment someone made, that the discussion of the trinity and oneness doesn’t matter. It does matter. Many encyclopedia’s and scholars will agree that at first the church baptized in the name of Jesus. The trinitarian formula wasn’t used until much later. If this doesn’t bother you then reference Galatians 1:8.
Scalia I enjoyed your comments and would like to open a dialog with you about another matter. If you click on my name and visit my site or email me, chad (at) csullivan.us. Thanks.
Nick, I don’t at all think so and I think I’ve sufficiently demonstrated why. We disagree and you wish not to continue the discussion. Fair enough. I very much thank you for your time and wish you all the best.
CS, I shall be emailing you shortly.
Dustin, I’m certain Nick wouldn’t appreciate us trying to turn this into a Oneness forum. If you can somehow get Nick to send me your email address, I’d be glad to discuss this or any other subject with you.
Best wishes to all,
Scalia
Concerning (1): Right, but we’re not talking cell-phones—that’s not analogous to extracting the makeup of God (i.e., how it works) when the Trinity is described. You can say God works, but to describe him in detail not provided in the Scripture (i.e., how He works/is made up by describing a god of one ‘substance’ that has three distinct personalities or persons which are unique, co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent) is conjecture. The Trinity, although it may make ‘sense’ in it’s description (even if it is at least partially illogical) does not make it so factual. For example, if you’ve ever seen a Star Trek episode, I’m sure you’re familiar with the term ‘flux capacitor’, but it doesn’t exist—even if a Trekie can describe it with perfect ease, it does not make it so.
As I said in the first post, the point (i.e., your comments being self-contradictory) is moot—your words, when read, said God’s working couldn’t be explained, and then you explain God as a Trinity. By saying God is a Trinity (as defined by the ‘Church Fathers’), then you are implicitly describing how he works. Without being distracted by imperfect analogies, you stated A) you cannot speak to how God works, and B) you then insist that you can describe the Trinity, which by it’s very description attempt to explain how God works (or at the very least partially). Hence, it is self-contradictory.
The bigger question concerns the Trinity and its origination. It’s an extraction from the Scripture and speaks, defines, & declares the how of God where the Scripture does not. The Trinity as defined by the church fathers and their writings is not a slam-dunk, based only on the facts (Scripture). It is a description of God that uses extra-scriptural ideas and (Greek) philosophies (as well as, imo, unreasonable extra-scriptural language). I would point you again to Gregory of Nyssa’s comments about how the early church fathers, who were also trained Greek philosophers, used their expert knowledge of Greek philosophy and chose to interpret the Scripture through that paradigm, through those colored glasses. “The Trinity corrects the error of the Greeks.” (paraphrase, G of N)
I would assert that in order for an individual to state that the Scripture clearly shows a Trinity as the Church Fathers declared, one has to have prior knowledge to the definition of the Trinity in order to assert a particular Scripture demonstrates it.
Concerning (2): Definition: Perjorative– having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force; Disparaging; belittling; dyslogistic; a word, expression, or affix that expresses criticism or disapproval.
It is a minor quibble, but applicable, nonetheless. Please keep in mind that it is a loaded term when bandied about with the intent to convey a negative connotation or condescension. Sabellianism, if used in order to imply heresy is a pejorative use. Whether you think it is accurate or not is not determinant of whether a word is used in a pejorative sense or not—it is the belittling or dyslogistic meaning that one would try to convey by the use of it.
Concerning (3): To explain away contradictions between the various and changing Trinity doctrines that are or have been accepted as ‘orthodox’ as ‘nuances’ is not being objective. When one early Greek philosopher/theologian Church Father describes the 2nd Person of the Trinity as being begotten, for example, and a later Church Father following up to describe the same Person as not being begotten, but always in the state of being begotten, these are mutually exclusive, not simply ‘nuanced’. There are many other examples. Gregory of Nyssa, as I referenced earlier, states that the Trinity is a correction of Greek polytheism, and that it is not compatible with the Monotheism of the Jewish converts (for the first decade or two, Christian church membership and outreach was relatively exclusively to the Jewish community which obviously held strictly to Old Testament Jewish beliefs and theological concepts of the Godhead, as clearly demonstrated by different episodes in Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament).
The amazing thing is that hard-core Trinitarians seem to be more interested in preserving the ‘historical orthodoxy’ and refuse to even rationally/objectively think about what an uproar this new doctrine would have in the mind of one that was raised Jewish, not to mention the Jews that opposed Christianity and denied Jesus as the Messiah. Since a common accusation of the Trinitarian doctrine (whether fairly or unfairly) is that it is polytheism in disguise (e.g., kuffar, or polytheistic, as the Muslims criticize it, etc.), don’t you think that the early Jewish establishment would have made the same age-old accusation had the Trinity been a commonly held belief in the Early Church?
The doctrine of the Trinity is an obvious and drastic departure from the Jewish concept of God—one need only to know the She’ma to understand that a non-believing Jew would repel at such words (three persons in the one substance of God) and attack the doctrine without ceasing.
Consider—why do we not read about the Godhead controversy until well into the 2nd and 3rd centuries? Is it, as Trinitarians suggest, that is when the Trinity came under attack, or is it more probable that this is when the doctrine began to be discussed? I think the objective observer, who is not predisposed to make the facts fit his theory, but rather let the fact form the theory, would assess that it is because the Trinity doctrine was a new thing, not because it was old and well established. By your own admission, and countless other Trinitarian’s, the doctrine of the Trinity evolved/developed (i.e., ‘nuanced’ [sic]) over a number of centuries (the better part of a millennium)
Again, one must also ask, since this doctrine is so profoundly different than that of Judaism, why wasn’t it written about clearly when it so obviously flew in the face of the doctrine which the first Jewish believers adhered to prior to their conversion? Especially given the fact that Christianity is derived from Judaism—the Bible clearly tells us that Christianity was considered another Jewish sect in the early years!
Concerning (4): Well, it would seem, based upon your criticism of Oneness, you (i.e., denying the Dual Nature of Christ). Let me quote your statement in response to my stating that Oneness believers believe in the Dual Nature of Christ: “ It’s more difficult to explain how Jesus can be treated as two persons (Father & Son), one divine, one human, and yet be one person.” I responded that it’s obvious that Oneness theology wholly accepts the scriptural doctrine of the Dual Nature of Christ—to which you denigrated and said it couldn’t be.
Concerning (5): When extra-scriptural language is describing extra-scriptural ideas/theology, when it creates meanings that the scripture does not clearly express (e.g., three persons instead of modes), and is not consistent with Scriptures predecessor interpretation, then we have a problem, that’s the ‘so what’.
As you readily admit as fact, the doctrine of the Trinity grew and morphed over the centuries (you soften the blow by desiring to describe this as ‘nuanced’), the doctrine itself grew from relying on scripture alone to relying on Scripture and appealing to extra-scriptural writings with non-scriptural proofed ideas as authoritative.
I’m certainly not saying that one can’t reference extra-scriptural writings—we all could use a good expository/exegesis, but when such references don’t clearly and cleanly align with original scripture, they should not be used. A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy will inherently be ‘nuanced’ into something that no longer fits.
Concerning (6): Really? Have you considered the origination of the trinity and what upheaval should have been recorded at the birth of the Church rather than 200 years later (after Greek philosophers began taking church leadership roles, and Constantine began to support it)?
Concerning the assertion that Oneness theology is convoluted and not scripturally adherent—it appears you really don’t know Oneness theology. Oneness theology points to the Bible as the ultimate authority, and where the Scripture does not speak, oneness theology remains mute. And you are incorrect—the early Church Fathers, by using Greek philosophical terms and categories were using Greek philosophy. I’m surprised that your making this statement didn’t make you stop and think. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck…
And you are incorrect concering Judaism rejection of the Godhead that a Oneness believer understands. Aside from the Dual Nature of Christ, Jewish theology accepts Oneness theology. There is no room for persons in the Jewish Godhead—“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord!”; “And beside Me, there is no other.” Depending on which Jewish though you subscribe will determine their thoughts on the Messiah and His divinity or not.
Concerning (7 & 8): I have no idea where you come up with the assertion that I’m proposing a form of piety. If you are saying that to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, repenting of one’s sins as he has commanded, and being baptized in His name as his word has commanded—I would call that obedient, not pious. Our righteousness is as filthy rags, and it is only Jesus and the Grace that he extends that allows us to know him and know our need for salvation. If a person believes in Jesus Christ as the Scripture hath said, has repented of their sins, confesses him Lord and is baptized in His name, then yes—I would call him Brother.
Don’t you see a similarity between the position you propose and that of the Pharisees of Jesus’ time? The Pharisee’s “knew” how the messiah would come—their beliefs had become so removed from the Law that their mishna had a compelling influence on what they would allow themselves to listen to or attempt to understand. When John the Baptist and Jesus, God manifested in flesh, came preaching the Kingdom of God, they clung to the writings and instructions of their own church fathers—more closely than the teaching of the God of Heaven through his last prophet and His son.
Concerning (9): Then you don’t know oneness theology. Your criticism of the Dual Nature of Christ, a belief that Oneness believers and Trinitarians share, is self-critical as well. The man Jesus (flesh) prays to the Spirit. Not sure what’s so difficult about that. It’s recorded through the Gospels. Certainly not convoluted as you assert—unless you’re locked into a mind-set that is out of sync with Scripture.
Quite related to the criticism you make, it seems that you are blind to the pitfall you create for Trinitarian belief. If the nature of the Trinitarian Son doesn’t pray, then it’s the 2nd Person of the Trinity that prays to the first Person, the Father, what do you get? Subordination—contradiction of the very definition that Trinitarians espouse. Any explanation that removes this contradiction (i.e., the Dual Nature of Christ) affirms oneness theology.
It appears to me that, although you know that Oneness rejects the Trinity, it does not seem you truly understand why. I would suggest that you objectively view the theology. To argue what a Oneness believer believes is futile—but to argue how the belief is or is not scriptural is not.
Since the new issue sof Pneuma will cover Oneness and the Trinity in detail, perhaps it would give you a better idea of what theology is actually saying, rather than relying on 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge & critiques. Trying to understand or discuss Oneness from a biased anti-Oneness perspective doesn’t allow you to accurately comprehend or objectively understand the theology.
David: Wow! You said a whole lot to basically say nothing at all. I don’t see anything new in that gargantuan comment. Please, I beg you, don’t ever leave something so long and repetitive on my blog again. If you do, I will be forced to erase it.
There are only two things I wish to address.
(1) I find your notion of “objectivity” to be ridiculous on its face for two reasons. The first is that absolute objectivity is impossible for anyone. The second is that by your judgment, objectivity equates to agreeing with you.
(2) My understanding of modern Oneness theology comes from nearly 4 years of speaking with dozens of Oneness Pentecostals from the UPCI and various Apostolic churches in AOL chatrooms, as well as in person, as Oneness churches are quite common in my area and being a Pentecostal myself, we tend to run in the same circles anyway. I have also learned from listening to debates between Oneness Pentecostals such as Robert Sabin (vs. James White & vs. Drew Ayers), and David Bernard (vs. Gene Cook), and reading Bernard’s book The Oneness of God. I have also spoken with many former Oneness believers and have learned from them as well. So if you somehow think that my understanding comes from second or third-hand sources, then you are mistaken.
The one consistent thing that I see among critics of Oneness theology is a misunderstanding or misapplication of trinitarian terminology. For example, Dr. Ergun Caner (president of a Southern Baptist seminary), says that Oneness theology is anti-trinitarian (correct) and that it denies the deity of Jesus Christ (how laughable is that)! Although I haven’t seen you go that far, your use of Trinitarian terminology (Persons) when discussion the Oneness position of Christ and his Dual Nature is an example of the misapplication and hence misunderstanding of Oneness theology.
BTW– one book that I would strongly recommend you read, for an objective view of the Trinity and Oneness theology, would be “Oneness, the Trinity and Logic” by Robert A. Herrmann.
Dr. Herrmann teaches Logic at Annapolis (or used to), and originally intended on writing a logical proof of the Trinity, and ended up instead with writing this book.
Again, I’m not assisting you agree with me, but to understand the perspective is critical in fruitful discussions.
David
Wow, Nick. I’m amazed that you deleted my relatively brief post on the inconsistencies of your previous comments. Since you arbitrarily decided that it was too long (given the lengthy missive you typed on 25 March, I’m surprised), I’ll reduce even further and recap the points without giving the examples.
1) You have failed to demonstrate an understanding of Oneness theology by misapplying loaded trinitarian terminology in it’s description.
2) You have failed to address the very fair question of why where there no controversy at the beginning of the Church over the ‘trinitarian’ doctrine. To assert that it was commonly accepted is absurd, especially given the fact that early Christians were Jewish (in belief and practice) who accepted Jesus as The Christ.
3) Objectivity is possible when viewing Scripture. Using extra-scriptural terminology that is derived from extra-scriptural ideas and interpretation should at all times be avoided, and let Scripture speak for itself.
Regards,
David
David: Amazed? I warned you that I would delete long comments. Anything is relatively short compared to your ridiculously long previous comment.
(1) I understand your theology completely, and when followed to its logical ends, Oneness Christology devolves into Nestorianism. I have not applied “loaded Trinitarian terms” to your beliefs. I have demonstrated that you treat both Father and Son as “personal” in that they relate to each other in “personal” ways, such as praying/receiving prayer, sending/being sent, etc.
(2) The formal doctrine of the Trinity developed over time as a means of articulating the Christian experience. Creeds were drafted in response to aberrant expressions of the faith by those deemed heretics.
(3) No, it isn’t. Point in fact is your reading Oneness theology into Scripture and then accusing dissenters of subjectivity. And it is impossible to articulate opposing positions over what Scripture does say without appealing to language outside of Scripture. I have stated this repeatedly and will not say it again. Also, Scripture does not “speak for itself” — it has to be interpreted. We clearly have different interpretations.
nick I wondering if you could send scalia my email address. thank you
dustin. Click on my name and comment on my site and I can send him your email addy. If you want.