Oneness Pentecoslism
Other Beliefs of Oneness Theology:
Besides rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, Oneness theology holds to some other interesting beliefs. Acts 2:38 is used by the UPCI to teach that the “plan of salvation” and correct “formula” for baptism should be in the name of “Jesus only.”[1] They claim that the historic formula used by the church is incorrect and unscriptural. Bernard says, “All biblical references to the baptismal formula, including Matthew 28:19, describe the name Jesus… a formula must include the name Jesus, not… recite the Lord's verbal instructions.”[2] They also believe that speaking in tongues is essential for the salvation of a believer. In the New Birth Bernard says, “Do tongues always accompany the baptism of the Spirit? The Book of Acts indicates this to be so… A Spirit baptism without tongues is a nonbiblical (sic) concept… We should always expect… tongues when someone receives… the Holy Ghost.”[3]
The Riddle of T.D. Jakes.
Recently many Oneness believers have received prominent status in the evangelical church.[4] The most prominent has been T.D. Jakes.[5] Jakes, the Senior Pastor of the Potter’s House, has admitted to Oneness roots in his theological upbringing and continues to associate with Oneness believers today. Jakes has said, “I was raised Baptist and became Pentecostal 26 years ago at a Greater Emmanuel Apostolic Church… and have continued to fellowship with Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies.”[6] When pressed to explain his understanding of the nature of God, Jakes said in a radio interview, “We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.”[7] The Potter’s House website explains, “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[8] So while Jakes might want to ride the theological fence, it seems clear that his theology is shaped by the Oneness views and he will not disassociate himself from them or renounce the theological error of the movement.
Conclusion:
It would appear that Modalistic Monarchianism, “Jesus Only”, or Oneness has plagued the Church from the beginning and has been found to be a heretical model of the nature of God. Ankerberg and Weldon says, “Those who argue the ‘Oneness Pentecostals’ are ‘Christian brothers’ need to explain why the church has consistently denied this… Modern commentators have agreed with their ancient brethren… [labeling] such teaching ‘heresy.’”[9] While that might be an extreme statement, placing the entire movement outside of the Body of Christ, it is fair to say that theology historically has been judged heretical but the salvation of individual believers is not for Evangelicals to decide.
Next some Christian responses to Oneness theology.
Helpful Resources:
1. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory A. Boyd.
2. Charts of the Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements by H. Wayne House.
3. “Jesus Only” Churches by E. Calvin Beisner.
Helpful Resources:
1. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory A. Boyd.
2. Charts of the Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements by H. Wayne House.
3. “Jesus Only” Churches by E. Calvin Beisner.
4. A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: Defending the Tri-Unity of God by Edward L. Dalcour (The best book on the subject so far. It was not published whe I wrote this paper.)
Questions to Ponder:
1. Does the Oneness position on the nature of God lend itself to errors in other areas of theology, such as soteriology and eschatology?
2. Should the rejection of various Oneness theologies in the history of the church persuade us to reject modern Oneness theology?
3. Can the belief that Jesus is God the Father and Holy Spirit be reconciled with biblical revelation?
Devotional thought:
Take a moment during to day to thank God for His self revelation of His nature and the beauty that it lends to the salvation message knowing that foreknowledge of the Father, the sacrifice of the Son, and the indwelling of the Spirit secure our salvation. Sola Deo Gloria.
As we approach the believer in Oneness theology remember that this is a person that God has died for and we should pray that the Spirit of God will give us words of comfort and encouragement as we dialog. The Bible says to speak the truth but it also says to do that in an attitude of love. If you know that you are going to be speaking with a Oneness believer, pray before during and after the conversation. If there is an unexpected conversation, listen as much as possible and afterwards pray that God would use the situation to bring him glory as you witness about the true biblical nature of God. Sola Deo Gloria.
Bibliography
Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.
Beisner, E. Calvin. "Jesus Only" Churches Zondervan Guide to Cults and Religious Movements, ed. Alan W. Gomes. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1998.
Bernard, David K. The Oneness of God. Vol. 1 Series in Pentecostal Theology, ed. David K. Bernard and Loretta A. Bernard. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983.
________. The New Birth [book on-line]. Hazlewood, Mo: Word Aflame Press, N/A 1984, accessed March 17 2005; Available from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-Top.htm.
________. Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300: The Doctrine of God in Ancient Christian Writings. Hazlewood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1991.
Biema, David Van. "Spirit Raiser." Time, September 17 2001, N/A.
Boyd, Gregory A. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 1992.
Buckner, Jerry L. "The Man, His Ministry, and His Movement:
Concerns About the Teachings of T. D. Jakes." Christian Research Journal 22, no. 2 (1999): n/a.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1994.
Hollenweger, W. J. The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches. Minneapolis, Mn: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972.
House, H. Wayne. United Pentecostal Church Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
Reed, David A. Oneness Pentecostalism The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 2002.
[1] See also Acts 8:12, 16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Romans 6:4. In Oneness theology, the order of the commands, in the English text, is “the plan of salvation.” The plan calls for 1. Faith and Repentance. 2. Being baptized by immersion in water, having the phrase, “In Jesus name” spoken over the one being baptized. 3. Having the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. See H. Wayne House, United Pentecostal Church, Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000). On page 249.
[2] David K. Bernard, “The New Birth,” online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-Ch7.htm, accessed 17 March 2005.
[3] David K. Bernard, “The New Birth,” online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ pentecostal/New-Ch7.htm, accessed 17 March 2005. Romans 8:9 say that if one does not have the Holy Spirit one does not belong to Christ, the implication being that person is still unregenerate. In other words, that person is not saved.
[4] Best selling Author Tommy Tenney (The God Chasers) is the son of T.F. Tenney. The elder Tenney has been a District Superintendent in the UPCI. Tommy Tenney claims no association with the UPCI but still will not affirm a Trinitarian model of God. Dove Award winners Phillips, Craig and Dean and Vickie Yohe; and Stellar Award winners Fred Hammond and Tonex are all Oneness believers active in Oneness churches.
[5] David Van Biema, "Spirit Raiser," Time, September 17 2001.The question on the cover asks if Jakes is the next Billy Graham.
[6] Thomas D. Jakes, “My Views on the Godhead,” online: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000 /108/13.0.html, accessed 17 March 2005. The term “Apostolic” is often associated with the Oneness movement. The Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies (http://www.highergroundaaa.com /home.htm) is an organization of churches from different theological beliefs but they are Oneness at their root. While there is little information about the beliefs of the organization on the website, a writer for the Christian Research Journal contacted the Assembly and spoke with Elder Mike Pearson, who is an instructor at the Higher Ground Bible Institute. Elder Pearson confirmed that the Assembly is Oneness in its beliefs.
[7] Jerry L. Buckner, "The Man, His Ministry, and His Movement:
Concerns About the Teachings of T. D. Jakes," Christian Research Journal 22, no. 2 (1999). This statement is almost identical to the statements of Bernard in the Oneness of God (pg. 142-143).
[8] “Belief Statement,” online: http://www.thepottershouse.org/PH_beliefs.html, accessed Thursday, March 17, 2005.
[9] Ankerberg and Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, 379-380.
3 comments:
Ed Dalcour a False Prophet alaong with every other refromed preacher and teacher. His 10 questions squashed!
Ed Dalcour:
1. where in scripture does it say God is Unitarian(1 person)?
mlculwell
it does not and we do not claim such outside the person of the son
(The real humanity that was in subjection to his God) John 20:17
Ed Dalcour:
2. If God is unitarian, how do you explain passages such as Genesis
19:24 where Yahweh ("LORD"), rained brimstone and fire from the
Yahweh out of heaven?
------------------------------------------------------
Mlculwell: FIRST I should explain something to those who do not
recognize the terminology Ed uses because "Unitarian" is not a term
that we use what so ever. Ed Dalcour uses the term in place of "1
person" because of what he assumes we believe the scripture teaches
which is not the truth at all ….
As Oneness we do not even believe God is a person outside of the
person of the son anyhow so before the Incarnation or where God(The
father as spirit) before he was in Christ (the Human son) God was
not even Unitarian because God is not a person period…
Now For the passage
The passage is a "re-emphasis" or as David Bernard says from his
book The Oneness of God pg. 154 The restatement as means of
emphasis the Bible clearly states there is only One LORD (Deuteronomy
6:4)" Notice what the passage actually says and what Trinitarians
are trying to force:
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
Please take note they believe this is one LORD because of the
literary restatement wording But this Lord rains down from where I
wonder? Heaven maybe? Maybe one is raining on Sodom and the other
Gomorrah? Silly, Right? Now the rest of the passage reads? Brimstone
and fire from the LORD.
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah Brimstone and fire
from the LORD.
also be it known Edward Dalcour likes to cry foul with his famous
line no exegesis no reply but we have no exegesis from these
questions only mere unproven theory for his trinity doctrine.
Ed Writes:
Note: there are many places in the OT where God is presented as multi
personal (e.g., the person plural personal pronouns used of God,
i.e., "Us," "Our," in Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8 [also
see John 14:23]; Yahweh to Yahweh and Elohim ("God") to Elohim
correspondences in passages such as Gen. 19:24; Ps. 45:6-7; Isa.
48:12-16; and Hos. 1:6-7).
3. If God is unitarian, why are there so many plural descriptions in
the OT (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God?
Example: in Isaiah 54:5, "Maker" is plural in Hebrew, lit., "Makers";
same with Psalm 149:2 where "Maker" is in the plural in Hebrew. The
same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally
reads, "Remember also your Creators" (plural in Heb.). Thus, because
God is tri-personal He can be described as both "Maker" and "Makers"
and as "Creator" and "Creators." He is one Being, not one Person—a
point that is repeatedly brought to bear by the OT authors.
Mlculwell: As Oneness we should not have a problem with the above to
any degree it simply confirms what we already know that the only
person of God or the humanity of the son in the incarnation was
included in creation before the son existed or the so called
incarnation took place all of mankind was predicated on the coming
son and the first man Adam was created in the image of God this is
again further stated by a much over looked passage in Romans 5:14 one
of the greatest creation passages of all in my opinion and very
telling of whom is God ..
who(Adam) was the Figure(Image) of him who was to come. (Romans 5:14)
I tell the truth in God and lie not when I say Adam was not made in
the image of a triune anything because there is no such thing in
scripture…
The plural is used in reference to God because the plural includes
not only the spirit of God who is not a person but the coming son in
the incarnation as the maker of mankind, the plural does not
include "three persons of God" , God is not a person or persons
period, something that Mr. Dalcour failed to prove in any kind of
exegesis because he will not be able to prove such a ridiculous
assumption, persons die, God does not, Jesus as a real human man, as
the only person of God died….
At the creation of Adam Jesus did not exist as a "God the son" but
his deity that of God the father did exist.
Ed Dalcour:
4. If God is unitarian, why is it that there are so many places in
the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are clearly
distinguished from each other in the same verse?
Example, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:14, "The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit be with you all." Also see passages such as Matthew 28:19;
Ephesians 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2 where all three
Persons of the Godhead are referred—in the same verse.
Mlculwell:
(The Love of God)
The three titles and manifestations have to be included without
which we would have no salvation or redemption, it took a sinless
sacrifice By man came sin and by One body we have been reconciled to
God (Eph. 2:16) through him we have access to one spirit (Not two
spirits or three) without which we shall noptbe saved (Roamns 8:11)
it took God's mercy and grace on a lost humanity to provide his only
begotten, a plan/Logos he had from the beginning of creation. God
did not fail, man did, so God made a way of escape from the
beginning…
(Jesus Christ)
Could the Spirit of God who had no blood or body to sacrifice until
the incarnation provide such until his plan actually came to fruition
in the incarnation? Thus the reason for his plan of the incarnation
before creation for creation in time from eternity.
The sinless blood sacrifice that only the son could provide, as a
full 100% human being, God did not have a human body until he took
the body, blood, and human spirit of the son…
The son in his humanity was the first comforter and would be the
another comforter in the spirit(John 14:18) I (Jesus) will not leave
you comfortless I (Jesus) will come to you(As spirit)
(The Comforter) is Christ in you the Hope of Glory the spirit
without which no man shall see the Lord Our mortal bodies are made
alive by that same spirit that raised the humanity of the son(Romans
8:11) we must have it.
Ed Dalcour:
5. If Jesus is the Father, why is it that Jesus is explicitly
referred to as "the Son" over two hundred times in the New Testament,
and never once is he called "Father?
Mlculwell: This is what Trinitarians do not get, it is just as
important that he (Jesus) was real humanity as to his sonship as it
was to his real deity as God the father AKA. The Holy Spirit. And
just as important he was never ever referred to as "God the son"
anywhere in scripture even though Trinity folk will tell you that is
what he is, there is no such thing in scripture, we do find he was
called the everlasting father In (Isaiah 9:6)
Philip asked Lord show us the father and it will satisfy us? Jesus
said:" Have I been so long time with you and thou hast not known me
Philip? he that has seen me has seen the father and how sayest thou
then show us the father?
I and my father are one(John 10:30) How ? The father that dwelleth
in me he doeth the works( John 14:10) If there was such a thing as a
God the son he was powerless(I can of mine own self do nothing John
5:30) and the scriptures reveal that the holy spirit of the father
dwelling in him(Humanity) he did not give up power as a so
called "God the son" when a supposed God the son became Human as
Trinitarians falsely claim because of their misinterpretation of
(Philippians 2:6-11) but rather God the father took upon himself the
form of a servant and made himself of no reputation and God the
father himself being found in the fashion of a man he humbled himself
in subjection as a real man to his God where God in turn exalted His
son the real human man(Not another person of God) the passage has to
be read that way to get that false interpretation anytime a
Trinitarian sees father, son, and spirit, they see three persons what
if they saw father son and husband would they also see three persons?
Of course not the phrase would need to be clarified further and their
bad interpretation of God needs to be clarified further and that is
the reason I have chosen to answer these questions.
Edward Dalcour:
The preexistence of the Son
6. If the "Son" has not eternally existed with (personally distinct
from) the Father why then is the Son presented as the Agent of
creation, that is, the Creator? (for in Oneness theology only Jesus
as the "Father" mode existed prior to Bethlehem).
Note: in passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews
1:10, the "Son" is clearly and grammatically presented as Agent of
creation, the Creator Himself. Specifically, in John 1:3, Colossians
1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, the Greek preposition dia ("though") is
followed by a pronoun in the *genitive* case (or possessive case).
Grammatically, when dia is followed by the genitive (as in these
passages), the preposition indicates "agency" (cf. Daniel B. Wallace,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 368; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise
Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. 31; A. T.
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:478-79; and cf. also
Walter Bauer's, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed.
[hereafter BDAG], 225).
Hence, exegetically these passages do not indicate that the Son was a
mere instrument of creation (as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons
believe), nor, as Oneness teachers say, do these passages indicate
that the Son was only a thought or plan in the Father's mind when the
Father (Jesus' divine nature) created all things.
Mlculwell: I will ask you the same question Tom Raddatz asked Gene
Cook in response to his debate with David Bernard…Why did God tell
Abraham he had( past tense) made him a father of many nations before
Abraham even had any children? Your so called method of exegesis is
seen to be very flawed in so many respects your doctrine must also be
flawed…
Rom 4:17 …God… call-eth (continuation process) those things which be
not as though they were.
It is very scriptural as God, the master builder to have a plan.
(Heb 8:5, 1 Cor 3:10).
"The voice of him that crieth (continues to cry) in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway
for our God.
Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be
made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough
places plain:" ( Isaiah 40:3-4)
The above passage gives no indication of the one crying in the
wilderness (in the present tense) that it is a prophecy and we do not
even know that until the New Testament from Matthew 17:12 reveals
that fulfillment (John the Baptist did not exist when the covenant
was in force, neither did the thief on the cross for that matter they
actually existed under the Old )
You have just almost explained for us by stating "Jesus divine
nature created"… First of all in the incarnation Oneness proponents
teach the father and son are one person. Apart from that incarnation
God is not a person, The humanity of the son (real humanity that
Trinitarians have to deny) to keep up their false view of God in
three persons , because God the son would be a hybrid, a new species.
(Not all 100% man that could die and be limited) but rather they say
God died, what they really mean "a new species" a mixture of God and
man, something very different from the supposed other two persons of
God. Making one third of God dying and for three days we were short
a third of God leaving two thirds of God a partial God if you will..
Why would I bring these major contradictions to light because I just
want to throw out supposed straw men argument s as I am sure they
would claim I am doing these arguments are relative to this debate in
exposing the false doctrine of the trinity they claim is an orthodox
doctrine when in fact it is not, it ties right into their problem of
another person of God that existed beside God the father in
creation….. God speaks of the son as though he created because he was
referring to a time coming when he(God) would be in Christ(making the
man Christ) and reconciling the world unto himself (2nd Cor.5:19) it
does not say "god the son" would do this, but notice it says God
would be in Christ distinguishing Christ from God in that the God
would be in the man, or son, making the man Christ. Of course there
is again a distinction but not at all how the Trinitarian places it
unscripturally I might add.
Edward Dalcour:
Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator
of all things Himself. That the Son was the Creator clearly disproves
the Oneness position.
This is the greatest weakness of the Oneness position: For if the Son
created, then, He eternally existed with the Father.
Mlculwell: Let's take a closer look at each passage and see if that
is so! The Trinitarian is simply making an unscriptural, unfounded,
assumption. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2,10
John 1:3 John refers to the word being with God in verse 3, John
calls the word a "he" John is now speaking from a knowing experience
from verse 14 where the word/plan was made flesh . did John know the
word when the word was the word? No! But he did know, see, and
touch., the word made flesh and could speak of the word made flesh
as a "he" there is nothing in John 1:3 that says the word pre-
existed beside ,with, God the father, in fact, we can get another
view from John in 1st John 1:1-2 where he says that which was from
the beginning which we have heard and seen with our eyes and handled
with our hands of the (word of Life) verse 2 it is called(eternal
life) that was "with" God (Pros*Grk* they say means toward God) will
Trinitarians now make these two other titles more persons? Ridiculous
like their doctrine. So now, just like in (John 1:1 where) the word
or plan/Logos is said to be both with God and God but not a separate
or distinct person with God, that has to be read into the passage but
we can also say(1st.John 1:1-2)
in the beginning was (eternal life/ word of Life) and (eternal life/
word of life) was with God, and (eternal life/ word of Life) was God.
You can no more separate eternal life from God and make it a person
than you can the word of God they are shown to be all the same thing
i.e. The plan for future redemption (Rev. 13:8) please tell us all
about the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world?
Then of all things he brings (Col.1: 16 ) to the table without even
quoting (Col. 1:15) where Jesus humanity is the image of the
invisible spirit of God. And if that is not enough he forgets that
the passage relates that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature.
How is that possible if Jesus was eternal? The passage actually
refutes the trinity doctrine, another Fine example of Dalcours so
called exegesis!
To be fair let's see how the Trinitarian wiggles out of this clear
passage
Ed Dalcour writes:
prôtotokos ("firstborn") in which Paul applies to Jesus. JWs
erroneously think "firstborn" means "first created." The assertion,
however, would be totally foreign in a first century Jewish context.
The word denotes "supremacy" or "first in rank" (see Exod. 4:22; Ps.
89:27) as the context of Colossians indicates. The term
translated "firstborn" denotes Jesus as "having special status
associated with a firstborn" (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 894).
Biblical scholar Robert Reymond extracts the true significance of the
term:
mlculwell:
Actually The JW's are totally wrong and the Trinitarian half right
which is not being right at all And Reymond almost extracted the
term! All mankind was created with the son in view and was the image
(Romans5:14) that man was created from(Gen. 1:26)when God said let us
make man. The firstborn of all creation refers to the son being
planned first for our redemption because God already knew man would
fail(Not God!)so that he already had our way of escape.
Now let's look at a passage Ed failed to submit with his unfounded
assumnption.
1st. Cor. 15:45-47 The first man Adam was made a living soul The last
Adam was
M-A-D-E a quickening Spirit(Life giving spirit) did you happen to
catch that? Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,(Did you
catch that Ed? scripture says he was not first)but that which is
natural; and afterward which is spiritual the first man Adam was of
the earth earthy the second man Adam was the Lord from heaven (Not a
third of three persons but the Lord from heaven. This Goes Right
along with( Romans 5:14) (Adam)Who was the Image of Him that was to
come. Adam Came first, the Image Adam was created in The Us from
(Gen. 1:26) included the coming human son in the incarnation that
which was made spiritual came last and was not there but could be
spoken of as though he were because in the incarnation he was God in
the flesh. That which both had a beginning as man and no beginning as
God.
We now see the reason he wants to exclude revealing passages,
ignoring others that would actually highlight his so called pre-
existence passages. The passage in (Col.1: 15) actually reveals to us
the correct view of the oneness and the incorrect view of the
trinity. Within Jesus existed fully that which was God 100% and Fully
that which was man 100% including Body, soul, and human spirit,
distinct from the Spirit of God the father so that Jesus actually had
two spirits, one Human, and one divine …
When the Apostles who personally knew Jesus wrote and spoke from a
knowing experience they wrote of His creating from the stand point
of His deity, nowhere do find "God the son" Trinitarians simply, as I
said before make unfounded assumptions, the Apostles in the way they
wrote of Jesus creating would be the same as I would write without
the added Trinitarian jargon that has to be added in explanation of
an unscriptural doctrine.
It should be pointed out that the distinctions of humanity and deity
only have to broken down for clarification of their (Trinitarian)
demented view of three persons of God.
Hebrews 1:2,10 Again, Dalcour makes use of the word "Son" and says;
see we have classic trinity doctrine? When we have no such thing! Ed
tries to make use of the fact that because we break down the
distinction between Jesus humanity and his divinity that we do not
believe Jesus was the actual creator, if you talk to any oneness
person on the street they would argue Jesus was the creator the same
Jesus that walked this earth as a man, the same man God was incarnate
but what God? Which God? Oh, you say! I have to qualify my statement,
I thought there was only one God? Either it is as trinity folks
say," that God the son was incarnate in the son" which is a
contradiction in and of itself. Did you happen to catch the next
contradiction of the doctrine? When Oneness speaks of the son we
speak of the creator he that has the son has the father also
Ed Dalcour:
7. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct
Person why is it that the "Son" can say, "Now, Father, glorify Me
together with Yourself, with the glory which I had [eichon,
or "shared"] with You before the
world was" (emphasis added)?
How did the Son have (literally, actively possessed) glory with
(para) the Father before time if the Son did not exist before
Bethlehem?
Note: In this beautiful passage (Jesus' high priestly prayer)
the "Son" (for Jesus says, "Now, Father") says that He possessed or
shared glory with the Father, before time.
To avoid the plainness of the passage (namely, the preexistence of
the Son and His personal distinction from His Father), Oneness
teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the
Father, only signified the future glory or "plan" in the Father's
mind, thus anticipating the Son's coming at Bethlehem. But the Son,
they say, was not really there with the Father "before the world
was." However, consider the following:
Grammatically, when the preposition para ("with") is followed by the
dative case (as in this verse: para seautô, "with Yourself" and para
soi, "with You"), especially in reference to persons, it
indicates "near," "beside," or "in the presence of" (cf. Wallace,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 378 and any recognized Greek Grammar
or recognized Lexicon of the NT such as BDAG, 757). Noted Greek
grammarian, A. T. Robertson says of the passage that
This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious
existence at the Father's side (para soi, "with thee") "which I had"
(hçi eichon, imperfect active of echô. . . . (Robertson, Word
Pictures, 5:275-76)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mlculwell:
The following is what I wrote initially to Ed in a private email
in which he replied and I cannot seem to find that particular email
but he wrote something to the effect That I violated the way
scripture should be studied and that I should replace my method of
study with his so called (flawed) exegesis (Vacuum Isolation) I
would come to Trinitarian conclusion (No thank you! ) Anyone in their
right mind can see how flawed the method is and the reason we have
such false teachers such as; A.W. Pink, Robert Morey, James White, F.
Turretin, John Calvin, and the Like. And yes I am not afraid to name
names.
Ed, do you know how many times I have read this
passage and heard this passage as an argument for
pre-existence from you folks? Do you really think you
are submitting some earth shattering argument for your
doctrine?
Jesus is not talking at all about pre-existence of
Himself alongside God the father, if I Isolated the
passage in a vacuum and simply went by grammar alone I
would come up with the same conclusion as you and be
stuck in the same false doctrine. Jesus is speaking of
his slain humanity in the plan/Logos of God for future
redemption.
Notice John 7:38-39 The Holy Ghost was Not yet given
for Jesus was not yet G-l-o-r-i-f-i-e-d. This glory
referred to his slain humanity in the plan/Logos of
God. Did you happen to catch the phrasing NOT YET GLORIFIED
it was the same glory Jesus was saying he
had with the father before the world was, the same that
Rev. 13:8 speaks of, as the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world. Now please tell me about
Jesus literally being slain before the world was. He
did not exist and Romans 5:14 says he did not...
Look at (Luke 11:50) where the blood of Prophets which was shed from
the foundation of the world.
Eph. 1:4 he chose us in him BEFORE the foundation of the world.
There is your before time! These passages most certainly show that
God had a plan and they are relevant so you cannot shrug them off as
being insignificant.
as far "the glory he had with the father before "time" as an
argument to prove pre-existence? Well, I use that very argument
against JW's it no more proves pre-existence than the passage you
submitted. Monotheism most certainly does not imply three persons.
Further; John 17:22-24 is the same context and speaks of the same
glory V.22 speaks of the glory given him . How is that? Notice verse
24 the glory given him(Right now from the foundation of the world)was
what the ("they" the Disciples) were about to witness (They were to
behold his glory he had with the father before the world was, proving
exactly what I have said all along.
Ed Dalcour:
8. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct
Person why is it that the "Son" is said to be "sent" from the
Father "out of heaven"?
Scripture presents in plain and normal language that the preexistent
Person of the Son was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17;
6:33, 38, 44, 46, 50-51; 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4).
Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is it said that Jesus sent the
Son.
Mlculwell: Please Ed! What you have said does not even make
sense.. How is it that you can write a book and claim to be an
authority on Oneness when you are just trying to be Cute? Why don't
you have one of your regular Trinitarian church going members ask us
a stupid question like the above? The people that hear this tripe
from you think this is what we really believe so Let me explain this
for you for the tenth time now. And yes, we believe God's name Is
Jesus! (John 5:43) I am come in my fathers name.(Name is not merely
authority) it takes the literal name for the Authority the reason we
Baptize by immersion in Jesus name.. Jesus received his name by
inheritance. Hebrews 1:4 (Psalm 22:22) But his humanity was the son
that had a beginning, the spirit existed before the son and actually
fathered the son miraculously, where there is a real father and son
relationship unlike the trinity doctrine where it is in name only.
Yes, we have a relationship with God where he is our father, but
Jesus was the only begotten(Sired and born) son of God.
As for the son being "Sent." How in the world do you exegete the son
was eternal from him being sent? The very term refers to the son
being provided as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. (Gal.
4:4) When the fullness of TIME was come(Then) God sent forth his son,
(How) made of a woman, made under the Law. Nothing said about
eternity!
Ed Dalcour:
If Jesus were the Father, as Oneness believers contend, one would
expect to find a clear example of this—at least one passage.
John 3:13; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28.
Mlculwell:
(Isaiah 9:6, John 10:30) Makes no difference if it is the everlasting
father or father everlasting or father of everlasting Age it was
still God the father in Christ not God the son.
Then
I (Humanity)and the father(Spirit) are one. There is only one spirit
(Eph.4:4) is that a shared Spirit Ed?
Then Ed submits the above passages for what reason?
Ed submits (John 3:13) which actually hurts his position actually
every passage he submits is damning to his position.. (John 6:38) I
came down from heaven not to do mine own will. But the will of him
that sent me. First off why does one God send another person of God?
Can't God send himself? But Ed misses the forest for the trees and
here again we see another Fine example of Ed Dalcours exegesis and if
that is what he learned in his reformed tradition I am glad I didn't
go!
Let's take a look further in the passage where Jesus actually
teaches how he was sent from heaven and what it actually means look
at verse 51?
I am the LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME FROM HEAVEN: if any man eat of this
bread , he shall live for ever :and THE BREAD I WILL GIVE is MY F-L-E-
S-H (WHICH CAME FROM HEAVEN) Flesh and blood does not inherit the
Kingdom! It can neither go, or come from there… Do you now see Ed?
God provided (Sent) the Flesh of His only begotten son as our
sacrifice from heaven he did not literally come from heaven as being
sent in that respect . your reformed tradition misses the mark
completely There is no need to go over the rest of these so called
pre-existence passage when Ed has been given the answer to every pre-
existence passage (John 6:51) and what they actually mean.
Ed Dalcour writes:
"No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven [ek
tou ouranou]: the Son of Man" (John 3:13). Thus, the Person of the
Son of Man was in heaven prior to being sent. That the "Son of Man"
was in heaven prior to Bethlehem creates a theological problem for
Oneness doctrine. For the "Son of Man" in Oneness theology was not
the Father, but the human Son who emerged not until Bethlehem, but
here, the Son of Man came from heaven, that is, the Son.
Mlculwell:
Ed Talks about "exegesis" but we certainly see a very good example
How the Trinitarian glosses over the passage with a lackluster
study skipping right over the clear language of this passage with
his Trinitarian blinders to see only what he wants to see, the
passage explains what we have been saying all along and why we say
and teach what we do, this is the clearest passage of all to prove
Jesus was the plan/Logos in the mind of God for future redemption.
The passage does not read:" God the son descended from heaven." The
passage reads:" the son of man descended from heaven" it is as plain
as the nose on his face! Do you know what the son of man is? I am a
son of man,(Born of mankind) Jesus as a real man was the son of
man ,that was what was provided from heaven(Sent) for our redemption
(His flesh, THE SON OF MAN!) men are both persons or people(No
difference) Both people or persons die, God as spirit does not…. I
listened to Dalcours little speech he gave trying to make his sheeple
believe his hand me down pagan tradition.
Ed Dalcour:
Also see Philippians 2:5-11, where we read that the "Son"
(see vv. 1:2, 2:9, 11) who, "existed in the form of God"
[literally, "always subsisting as God"] . . .
Mlculwell:
The form of God was the son(The Humanity) The form Of God the father
was the son. The father that dwelleth (Continues to dwell) in me he
doeth the works(John 14:10) I defy the Trinitarian to find me a
passage that says "God the son" was in the son? There again is a
great problem with the trinity doctrine of their hybrid God man.
(2nd. Cor. 5:19) God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
himself. Which God? Does the Trinitarian take note that the passage
reads unto himself? Was it "God the son" in the son? Do you see how
silly this gets?
Ed Dacour:
emptied Himself . . . taking the form of a bond-servant." Note that
the Apostle Paul indicates that the "Son" was always existing as
deity. Oneness deny that the Son is God, only the "Father" (i.e.,
Jesus'' divine nature) is God. However, here the "Son" is presented
as fully God.
For in verse 6, Paul plainly asserts that Jesus was
always subsisting as God: "who . . . existed [huparchôn] in the form
of God [morphç theou]" (emphasis added). The word
translated "existed" is huparchôn (the present active participle of
huparchô). The present particle indicates a continuous existence or
continually subsisting (see BDAG, 1029; Thayer, 638)—the Son was
always God.
Mlculwell: Oh how Ed would love for the passage to say such. Take a
closer look at what Ed is trying to say by looking at the actual
passage and consider this? Who being in the form of God thought it
not robbery to be Equal with God. Are you smelling what I am
stepping in?(as we would say In Arkansas.) do you see the
contradiction of what ed Just said? How Can he exist always as God
and think it not robbery to be what he already exists as ? It is
talking about the real humanity of the son as the form of God
thinking it not robbery being equal with God not the other way around
more of Ed's faulty exegesis.
The same form of God is the form of the servant, it is impossible
for what Ed has tried to force, he has tried to pull an okie doke.
Ed: Dalcour.
Hence, Jesus, the Son (cf. 1:2, 2:9, 11), did not become
the very form or nature (morphç) of God at a certain point in time,
rather He always existed as God. Further the "Son" is said to have
voluntarily "made Himself nothing, taking [labôn]1 the nature of a
servant" (vv. 7-8).
Mlculwell: It says no such thing as what has been presented They are
confusing the humanity of the son with the spirit of God just like
they confuse everything else. What Ed has presented does not make any
sense it was God that made himself of no reputation by taking the
form of a servant (His only begotten son.) God was in Christ (2nd.
Cor. 5:19) Was this the trinity? No… Do they read this, the son was
in the son? Do we all see how ridiculous their doctrine is? It was
God the father in the son.. The father(God as Spirit) that dwelleth
in* me *(The son) he doeth the works.
Ed Dalcour:
Note that the reflexive pronoun heauton, (lit. "Himself He
emptied") indicates a "self-emptying."2 Thus, it was not the Father,
as Oneness teachers
suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and became
obedient to death—"even death on a cross" (v. 8).
Mlculwell:
The nearest antecedent to the pronoun (Himself) in (verse 7) shows
that it was God in (verse 6)
Ed Dalcour:
9. If Oneness doctrine is biblically true, why then do the biblical
authors use grammatical features that personally distinguish between
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
Mlculwell:
Because they were real distinctions: Spirit, and flesh, and when I
say flesh, I am not talking about a mindless puppet, I am talking
about body, soul, and human spirit distinct from the Spirit of God I
am talking about a human will distinct from the will of the spirit
(Not my will but thine be done.) you act like this is the first time
oneness folks ever saw passages that present the distinctions… As
Oneness believers we understand that because Jesus says: not my
(Human) will, but thine(God as Spirit) be done. We do not have two or
three persons of God because we see distinctions in the human will
and the will of the Spirit,. Do you remember the Old Sesame Street
song, one of these things are not like the other? We have Spirit,
(God ) and flesh) we don't have two of anything, we have 1 God, and 1
man, and all of that was in the Lord Jesus Christ… Please Ed, tell me
How God Dies? Tell me How God has a God? (John 20:17) I am going to
ask you again, we believe Jesus is the only supreme God, what do you
say?
Ed Dalcour:
Example,
First and third person personal pronouns:
Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the
Father by using first person personal pronouns ("I," "Me," "Mine") to
refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns
("He," "Him," "His") to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10,
16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus
differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:
Mlculwell: This has been dealt with; Not My will but thine be done.
The will of 1God as Spirit and one human man, but we do not have two
persons of God, nor do we even have two persons that will have to be
proved by Mr. Dalcour and I welcome him to try or anyone else I have
argued this point many times and am confident there is not a
Trinitarian anywhere at any time that will be able to prove this
failed point of theirs.
Oh as a side note, while we are in this area let's talk about how
they historically misrepresent Oneness or "Modalism" as they call
it, they believe it is our belief that God somehow changes or Morphs
from 1 Mode into another as in; Now I am the father and am becoming
the son Etc. and that no mode exists simultaneous, I assure Mr
Dalcour this is not our belief and I have heard this misrepresented
of By them of Us many times. Our Belief is that Jesus was a real
human man that was in subjection to God as a real human man and
prayed and hungered and died. It is However their belief that Jesus
(And I know I am not misrepresenting them) that Jesus as "God the
son" died. This is a real problem for the Trinitarian as it would
make Jesus a Hybrid and not like we are I can't wait to hear Mr
Dalcour explain himself on this point.
Ed Dalcour:
"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon]3 Helper,
that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26;
emphasis aded).
Mlculwell:
Yessss! Because Jesus was the first comforter(Helper) in his Flesh
and would be the other Comforter in the spirit (1st. Cor.15:45) The
second man Adam was made a quickening(Life Giving) Spirit. I(Jesus)
will not leave you comfortless
( as orphans, or fatherless)I(Jesus) will COME TO YOU.( as the
father of the fatherless orphans or the Spirit) and yes emphasis
added.
Ed Dalcour:
Repetition of the article:
Specifically, the repetition of the article tou ("the") before each
noun and the conjunction kai ("and") that connects the nouns clearly
denote a distinction between all three Persons named.4 Note Matthew
28:19: "in the name of the [tou] Father and the [kai tou] Son and the
[kai tou] Holy Spirit."
Mlculwell: Manuel the father , the son, and the husband, no more
presents three persons than Ed trying to pull the wool over our eyes
on this. And even more, the passage reads: Baptizing them in the name
of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost, as if there is
one name for all three titles and when the Apostles actually Baptize
they use the one name of the father and of the son and of the Holy
Ghost . That being the name Jesus in Acts 2:38, 8:16,10:48 where
they were COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD(Jesus)
Acts 19:5, 22:16, James 5:14 Call for the Elders anointing with oil
in the name of the Lord. Please note; these folks will make a big
deal about the name meaning authority but again, it takes the literal
name spoken in covenant relationship for the Authority. The Hindus
Baptize in the Ganges, what is the difference between their heathen
Baptism and ours? The name being Spoken as the Authority, you cannot
say you have authority and say you are Orthodox and cannot be in
covenant relationship without having the name spoken over you in
Baptism to be contrary to scripture is unorthodox.
Ed Dalcour:
Further, Paul clearly presents the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, not as three modes of a unipersonal deity, but rather as
three distinct Persons. The same grammatical distinctions are
observed in 2 Corinthians 13:14:
The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God
[tou theou (lit. "the God")], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou]
Holy Spirit be with you all (emphasis added).
Mlculwell: As I have stated previously to Mr. Dalcour these
manifestations of existence have to be mentioned always, all three
titles of our God have a hand in our salvation .
God provided our way of redemption through the shed blood of his
only begotten,(The sacrifice of his flesh or his life. 1st. Peter
2:24) the Flesh or real humanity (Body, soul, and human spirit) To
the trinitarian he is a Hybrid, He would not be in all points
tempted as we are and he would not be what we are. God was in Christ.
(2nd. Cor. 5:19) Which God? The passage does not read "One person
of God was in a person."
Ed Dalcour:
In Revelation 5:13, the Lamb and the Father are presented as two
distinct objects of divine worship, as they are clearly
differentiated by the repetition of the article tô:
To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor
and glory and dominion for ever and ever (emphasis added).
"To Him who sits" (tô kathçmenô [lit. "to the one
sitting"—the Father]) "and the Lamb" (kai tô arniô—the Son) are
grammatically differentiated by the repeated article tô ("the"),
which precedes both nouns and are connected by the one conjunction
kai ("and"). Further, turning to 1 John 1:3, not only does John show
that believers have fellowship with both the Father and the Son, but
the Father and the Son are clearly distinguished as two Persons by
the repeated article tou ("the") and the repeated preposition meta
("with"):
we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with
[meta]us; and indeed our fellowship is with the [meta tou] Father and
with [meta] His Son [tou huiou] Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3; emphasis
added).
Mlculwell:
Again this has been explained, (All thre manifestations have to
always be mentioned because they are included in our redemption
ultimately it is only one God but nothing is ever said of three
persons of God ever in scripture no matter how the trinitarain would
love to force such a twisted view…
But Notice How Mr. Dalcour takes the *Us * in this particular
passage and makes it of a (So called )persons of His Fictitious
trinity? The Us refers to the fellowship of the Apostles and other
believers, then the passage Focuses on our fellowship with the father
and with His son Jesus Christ. (Who was his son?) That which was Born
(Sent) when the Fullness of time was come, MADE of a virgin made
under the Law. He was sent in time, Not eternity, he was planned as
our redemption before time. The same Son made a life giving Spirit
(1st. Cor. 15:45-47) Where Adam came First and then the son(Romans
5:14, 1st. Cor.15:46) Whenever any passage speaks of the sons pre-
existence it is speaking from the standpoint of what the Apostles
knew and were3 taught personally from the Lord that being that Jesus
was God manifest in the flesh in other words it was his Deity(That of
God the father AKA the Holy Ghost.)
Ed Dalcour:
There are many other passages where this construction
applies clearly denoting distinction between the Persons in the
Trinity (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 John 2:22-23).
Mlculwell:
Now God himself our father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way
unto you.
Now God Himself Our Father (Notice who God is?) "Our father" and
trinity Folks say Jesus is not the Father. I thought God was a
trinity?(This will then be followed by a but, but, but from the
Trinitarian) They make distinctions when they think it clearly
teaches their false doctrine but when it actually exposes their
doctrine it teaches completely opposite. Even with the (The Grk.
kai ) which can* mean* even or* and * depending on the context. (
For a better understanding of these passages presented By Ed read The
God of Two testaments By Robert Brent Graves, who goes into great
detail explaining all of the passages presented.. a former Church of
Christ Minister.)
2nd. Thess.2:16-17
Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself , (kai ) and God, even our
father, which hath Loved us. If anything, the way the passage reads
would be Damning for the Trinitarian. It would either mean that
Jesus Christ is not God (Which is not true) or that we have actually
Ditheism(Polytheism) If Jesus is God and in addition we have God
even our father then we have Two Gods, nothing is said in the passage
about persons of God.
The passage could very well read: Now the Lord Jesus Christ even God
and our father. Would mean the same either way, that Jesus is God and
our father. Still, the distinction between the Spirit of God and the
sacrificial humanity has to remain as long as people will be Redeemed.
Ed Dalcour:
Different prepositions: Throughout John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-
16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different
prepositions. This use of different prepositions "shows a
relationship between them,"5 and clearly denotes essential
distinction, e.g., "no one comes to [pros] the Father but through
[dia] Me" (John 14:6); "he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going
to [pros] the Father" (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28).
Mlculwell:
Of Course he distinguishes himself as the first comforter in the
flesh, and as part of Gods plan he is also the other comforter in the
spirit. (1st. Cor.15:45-47,2nd. Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit)
The flesh paid for our way to come to God. There is one mediator
between God and man *the man *Christ Jesus.(1st. Tim. 2:5) Not a "God
the son" if that were so we would not have a mediator because it
would not be the man Christ Jesus, it would be again a hybrid because
Trinity Folks have God dying for our sins and mediating , the reason
the prepositions are used are for that distinction not for a
distinction between God persons. (God was manifested or revealed in
the flesh 1st. Tim 3:16)
Ed Dalcour:
Paul, too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearly
differentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul
teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the
Father by means of the Spirit:
For through Him [di' autou—the Son] we both have our access in [en]
one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18).
Mlculwell: Amen! Our redemption was Bought and paid for through the
sacrifice(Of His flesh) once for all. Of course Paul would use those
distinctive prepositions because it was the man Christ Jesus that
paid the price and later the spirit of him given him without measure
(John 3:34) which he(His humanity) was and was made(1st. Cor.15:45-46)
Ed Dalcour:
10. If Oneness doctrine (or modalism) is the so-called doctrine of
the apostles, then, why was it universally condemned as *heretical*
by the early church Fathers (some of who were disciples of the
original apostles) and condemned by all the important church councils
and creeds?
Mlculwell: actually this whole arguemnt is irellavent! So were
Hymenaeus and Philetus Close and lived in their day who taught the
resurrection was past,(Oh, I see, he interjects his false Doctrine Of
Calvinism) your argument does not hold up to the scriptures because
someone from (a so called) Church history is said to be a disciple
of the original Apostles,(Here say) this smells of the same false
argument the Catholic Church gives for her oral Authority which
should simply be accepted there are many doctrines from those so
called fathers I could present, you would shrink from! Then this is
the same group that speaks of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and
then presents a so called argument as to why we have been condemned
by councils and creeds of men(Not of scripture!) This argument I had
a good laugh from… I am not held to your councils or Creeds as final
authority on anything if those men you have followed are wrong, you
will die unsaved with them. If not, I will, but I would rather take
scripture than your councils and creeds of men with (unscriptual)
theories you prop up as truth. We are the only ones that believe in
Sola scriptura you on other hand only make the claim when you are in
the same boat as the Catholics.
But though we (apostles) or an Angel from heaven , preach any
other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be accursed.(Gal. 1:8) Nothing was said from an Apostle of your
doctrine of the trinity of multiple persons of God so to me you are
accursed until you repent of that false doctrine. I am not even to
listen to your councils creeds of men they must be held to the light
of the scriptures and they found wanting for truth.
Jesus is the only supreme God..
ML Culwell
After reading mlculwell to this concise overview of the Oneness theologicals defects (for the interested reader should read all of Dalcour’s’ works in full (www.christiandefense.org), one thing is certain: mlculwell ignores the textual/exegetical points and argues from a purely philosophical non-exegetical plane.
He has not responded exegetically to virtually every exegetical point that Dalcour presents such as the Son’s active role in creation, mlculwell simply tosses it away and denies it (but he does not exegetically refute it).
Or John 17:5, and the preposition para followed the dative (at two places in the text) indicating a *side by side* association between the Father and Son (which every grammarian that I know of affirms at 17:5) that the Son said that He had WITH the Father before time—the plain reading. And he ignores the fact that the Son said: Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself [para seautw], with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
The Son “commands” (doxason me --imperative tense here) the Father to do something, what is that something?: to glorify Him together with the Father.
I would add also, that the personal pronouns in the passages (*I,* *Me,* *You,* *with Yourself*, etc.) and the fact it was the Son that said He possessed glory (of which God said that He will not share with anyone else, only God; cf. Isa. 42:8) a well as the perfect tense of echw showing that the glory that the Son had (imper. eichon) was an ongoing past action, show that: the Son preexisted with the Father before time—which is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
I think if Oneness believers were to really examine the text on its own exegetical merit they would not be Oneness.
ED
yeah, You are precious Ed. Same old song and dance from you to claim I did not deal with what you have presented.
Post a Comment