Interview with Irvin Baxter
I had a very good interview with Irvin Baxter this evening. One hour long. You may listen to it here. While Irvin believes that the Antichrist will come from the Roman Empire, we had a great discussion. I was also pleased to learn that Irvin also shares with myself and Dave Hunt the conviction that Gog and the Antichrist are one and the same.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Joels interview seems to start at 8:50
http://endtimemp3.gsradio.net:8080/endtime/media/mp3/PR092209.mp3
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I have now read both Walid’s book Gods War on Terror and Joel’s new rereleased Antichrist book.
In Walid’s book he makes a point that, the beast which suffers a wound to the head which kills it, and than is raised from the dead in 3 days, is actually a metaphore for Islam. Islam was essentially killed when the last caliphate ended and will be revived when the next one begins with the Mahdi leading it. This makes sense to me and is another proof that the antichrist will be muslim not European.
Is this a common belief? In Joels book he also talks about the AC actually suffering a wound to the head and dying and being raised from the dead. I do not believe that satan has the power to raise the dead, just curious what others think. I am wondering if Joel and Walid disagree on this point.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I use to listen to Irvin Baxter years ago after I changed from pre-trib to post-trib. He seemed to be very sincere and interested your perspective Joel.
Does Mr. Baxter still teach the doctrine of Oneness?
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:54 am
The demographic problems for Israel could be solved if the jews in the United States ever decided to leave. There seems to be an equivalent amount of jews in the U.S. as there is currently in Israel. That could kick the prophetic can further down the road.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 am
Mitchell,
I couldn’t tell you. I certainly hope not.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 am
artifact seeker,
I actually wrote Islamic Antichrist over five years ago. On the issue of the head wound, I would say that it primarly refers to the Kingdom / Empire an could, but may not also refer to the King / antichrist himself. If there was anything that I would change in my book, that little speculative portion would probably be included.
Bless you, Joel
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Joel, to my knowledge he still does, though I hope I am wrong. After learning that he denies the Trinity a number of years ago I did a study on Oneness theology, and the more I studied the more convinced I was that the doctrine of Oneness is a very flawed and unscriptural position. His statement of faith on the www.endtime.com website says, “There is one God who created all things. In order to save us, He became man. Jesus Christ was God in flesh, Emmanuel — God with us (Matthew 1:23).” No mention of the Triune nature of God.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
@”artifact seeker”,
be far away from the books of the misunderstanding.
those who disbelieve want to mislead you.
No one will help you the day the beast comes except the will of God.
So beseech God for the time is near.
And help yourself with the example of our father Abraham when Nemrod
tried to force him to believe in him and worship him besides the one God :
“Have you not considered him who disputed with Abraham about his Lord, because God had given him the kingdom. When Abraham said, ‘My Lord is He who gives life and causes to die,” he said, ‘I too have power to give life and cause death.’ Abraham said: ‘Surely God causes the sun to rise from the East. Make it rise yourself from the West.’ Thus was the unbeliever confounded. God does not guide aright the unjust.” Quran (2:258)
M.Siljander yesterday appeared on Aljazeera channel. he was presenting his book :
“A Deadly Misunderstanding”
and answered questions pertaining to misunderstanding between people.
And yes, you can say that Islam was killed long ago soon after the death of Prophet Mohammed and that they established Khilafate and oppressed the Imams the last of whom is the Mahdi, son of Narjis , grand-daughter of Saint Peter, and also son of Askari, the Eleventh Imam from the Progeny of Fatima, daughter of the Last of the Messengers (P&PBUT ALL)
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Dear Joel, I just listened to your impressive interview with Irvin Baxter. I have listened to his radio broadcasts for a long time and think he is a very intelligent, humble teacher. It was delightful to hear you two discuss different endtime interpretations in such a peaceful tone. I praise God that Christians can (and should) discuss differences with such a mature, gracious attitude.
On my recent vacation I read your book “Islamic Antichrist”. Thank you for sharing this information with the Church. As you stated so wisely in your interview with Irving, some of God’s watchmen are standing on the wall looking west for the enemy, while others are looking east. The important thing is that we are watching and praying as Jesus taught us to do.
Your insight on Islam taught me a lot about the culture. Thanks for sharing that wisdom. I am inclined to believe your whole theory that the antichrist will be Muslim, but for the time being, I will also “stand on the wall” and look BOTH ways.
I am also interested in whether you are a pre, mid, or post tribber and the reason for your beliefs. I tend to be a “pan” tribber. Knowing that it will all pan out, according to God’s will.
Besides my interest in endtimes, I am a scientific type that has been studying the Shroud of Turin for over 20 years. Although many people think that it is hoax, the more I study it, the more I am amazed by it. Go to the websites: www.shrouduniversity.com or www.shroud.com for the latest. The 2008 conference in Columbus, OH was great. If you are thinking that the Shroud was proven to be a hoax by Caron 14 dating, you need to study the recent works of Rogers, Marino, Benford, and Villareal. (see the first website.) I was just wondering if the physical evidence of the Shroud would be a way to convince Muslims that Jesus truly died and was resurrected. Physical evidence made a great impact on my life and also on the life of the disciple Thomas.
Thanks for your ministry!
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Good interview.
I have to admit I often have trouble discussing end times theology using the term “Antichrist” It seems to be something of a popular misnomer when discussing the man of sin as “antichrist has such a broad range of apllication. While it applies specifically to the discussion, popular culture has distorted the true intent of the passage and I believe causes great confusion in discerning prophecy as it can be molded to fit many unbiblical models of interpretation from secular atheists to fringe elements of Christianity itself.
Keep up the good work Joel!
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
hIOExpectedMKDisk,
Listen to your own words:
“be far away from the books of the misunderstanding.
those who disbelieve want to mislead you.
No one will help you the day the beast comes except the will of God.
So beseech God for the time is near.”
I, along with others on this blog, have challenged you to ask JESUS to reveal Himself to you. I’m convinced that if you do, He will reveal Himself to you in a way that YOU will know that He is who He says He is.
Consider the words of the Prophet Jeremiah - Ch. 29:11-14!
Also, consider the words of Peter in 2Peter 3:9
May the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob draw you to a saving knowledge of Chirst Jesus - Amen!
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Could you please give me a list of all Sciptures that speak of a Triune God? I find none myself that speak of three separate and distinct members of a trinity who are co-equal and each omnipotent and each eternal. Thank you for listing these for my further study.
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
It was an excellent interview and I enjoyed it greatly. To bring a little bit of clarity regarding Mr. Baxter’s views, he believes that the Antichrist will arise from a revived “Holy Roman Empire” which is different from the “Roman Empire”. A primary note distinction on this is the fact that the Holy Roman Empire always had two specific rulers that shared power,one political and one religious. This appears to be a solid model for what is prophecied to come in the Antichrist and False Prophet. That being said he does appear to anticipate the Antichrist will arise from more of a European Union of nations rather than Islamic. You both were excellent today!
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Pam, all scriptures and also explanations about the fact of the Trinity are here for your consideration
http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
September 24th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Harpazo and pam
If you look at the masoretic text in the old testament there is no plural form of God in anyway. The KJV translation is somewhat misleading. Talk to any rabbi and they will tell you the same thing or look it up. I am NO SCHOLAR but I have researched it because there was a time in my life I only believed in Judaism.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Regarding the Trinity, I think that link above does a fair job. Personally, I have realized through the Word and meditation that we are (at this time in our existence) bound to a physical realm and comprehending things that are of the spiritual realm are difficult at best.
For example, we can ‘imagine’ eternity, but we do not fully grasp the reality of it. In the same way, we might imagine the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship as we do our own beings, meaning that we have a mind, spirit, and body, all of which comprise our being, yet none of which are separate from the other.
Consider that when the Lord knit us together in the womb, he is not only referring to our physical attributes, but that he joined our spirit with our body. Science in this physical realm will never be able to understand the spiritual realm. As children of God, part flesh, part spirit, we must also simply trust the Lord, knowing that in our current state, we may not be able to fully comprehend some things.
So the Father-Son-Holy Spirit may simply be the Lord’s way of helping us understand him…Father being the mind, Son being the physical form, and Holy Spirit being his spirit. We are created in his image, perhaps our finite manifestation can help us understand God at some level.
I am certain there are mysteries we will never understand, even after our perfection. When I try to explain to my young daughter what a planet is, that we all live on a planet called Earth, and on and on…just when I think she is starting to get it…she will ask if her younger baby sister lives on a planet too.
How old are we? 30, 40, 60, 90 years old? Should we expect to understand everything our eternal creator has told us? Believe, yes. Fully comprehend, I doubt it.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Good answer Water!
It’s just like the question, “How much does God love you?”
The answer: as humans, we are not able to fully comprehend how much He loves us!!!
He loves you also hIOExpectedMKDisk!
September 24th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Harpazo, Water, Jon and hIOExpectedMKDisk–
Thank you for the link and perspectives regarding a Triune God. I have only had time to skim the article but hope those who have insight into this will be “Berean” and help me understand your perspectives which I find very interesting and pertinent. After skimming to the bottom of the article, however, I find the chosen best representation of the Trinity to not be tri (three) but quad (four): 1. God, center; 2. Father, 3. Son, 4. Holy Spirit. Personally, I find myself wondering if this is not polytheistic.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Yes I know, and because of that he also sent prophet Mohammed (P&PBUH) to say that no one can be muslim untill he loves others as much he loves his own self.
Following this, I try to advise others and tell them the truth as much as I know it.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:59 am
my message was to Pam, not to the one whom ignorance sent him to the belief that God is 4.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:59 am
my message was to Bo, not to the one whom ignorance sent him to the belief that God is 4.
September 24th, 2009 at 7:59 am
hIOExpectedMKDisk
Would you be willing to send me your e-mail address. I haven’t had the opportunity to converse with many Muslims, but would like to. There are questions that I have; however, I don’t think this forum is the most suitable place to carry on personal conversations of this sort. If you’re willing, send your email address to me.
bodorsey@ellijay.com
Thank you!
September 24th, 2009 at 8:14 am
One of things that I like about the interview was the lack of contentiousness on the part of the host. There were clearly items that were points of disagreement, but they were discussing them in a civil way.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:56 am
With respect to the Trinity, I’ve posted this elsewhere before but think it’s good to post it here as well.
It may be difficult for our finite minds to comprehend an infinite God and His Triune nature as revealed in the Bible, and it is difficult to come up with a perfect analogy that could help everyone understand. The best analogy that I could think of however is that of FIRE. Think of the fire of a burning candle. We have three things: light, heat, and a flame. And although we have these three, it is just one fire. Yet, the light is fire. The heat is fire. The flame is fire. Though these three are distinct from one another, each one is fire, and it is only one fire. This is similar to the nature of God as revealed to us in the Holy Bible — three personages, whom we call the Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit, yet there is only One God.
I believe that even creation itself gives us hints to His Triune nature and that we can see His fingerprints reflected in the cosmos. Modern science now understands that the universe is expressed as time, space and matter. Three in one. In each of these, there is also three in one: Time is comprised of past, present, and future. Space is comprised of length, width and depth. Matter is comprised of solid, liquid and gas. This is essentially a “trinity of trinities”. Did God try to tell us something in His creation about His nature? I say yes.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Yes Irvin Baxter belives in one God as many of do God is not a person or personages. He is one and his name is one
September 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
It is very refreshing for me to see that I am not alone in my monotheistic
beliefs here.We believe that there are three offices of God which He fills,
or three different manifestations of the One True God.Praise the Lord.
His Name Is One,God is not a name,Father is not a name,Son is not a name,Holy Ghost,Spirit are also not names.There is only one name given among men where by we must be saved.That Name is the Lord Jesus Christ.
He is Emmanuel God with us as Matthew proclaimed.
Where is the word trinity in the Bible anyway give me the verse?There is none.Hear o Israel the Lord your God is One Lord.Jesus said this is the first and greatest of all the commandments,and to love your neighbor as yourself
was second.I appreciate this forum,but respectfully disagree with any perspective that cannot be backed up with the scripture. Jim
October 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
http://www.joywell.org/apologetics/oneness.html
1. Oneness apologists claim that Deut.6:4 denies the Trinity.
Deut.6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”
Duet. 6:4 does not deny the Trinity, but rather affirms one of the tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity (see above). The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that there is “one God.” Quite often, those who argue against the Trinity don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity well enough to explain it, much less refute it. They exaggerate and distort the doctrine of the Trinity into something that can be easily dispelled. That is known as the straw man fallacy. The name of the straw man fallacy comes from the idea that if you set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. That is exactly the way the fallacy works, set up a distorted view and knock it down. In dealing with Deut.6:4, the oneness apologists set up a distorted straw man view of the Trinity and then knock it down. They claim that the Trinity is a belief in three Gods in order to make the doctrine contradict the Bible.
2. Oneness apologists claim that Isa.9:6 proves that Jesus is God the Father.
Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
The Darby Bible and Young’s Literal Translation both render this passage as “Father of Eternity.’
Isa.9:6 (Darby Bible) “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.”
Isa.9:6 (Young’s Literal Translation) “For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.”
Dr. Robert Bowman points out that Abiethon - literally “father of strength” (2 Sam. 23:31) means “strong”; Abiaseph - literally “father of gathering” (Ex.6:24) means “gatherer”; and Abigail - literally “father of exultation” (1 Chron.2:16) is a woman’s name meaning “exulting.” Therefore, “Father of eternity” in Isaiah 9:6 means that Jesus is “eternal.” According to Matthew Henry’s Commentary this implies that Jesus is the creator of the ages (Heb.1:2; 11:3). It does not mean that He is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2Cor.1:3).
3. Oneness apologists claim that John 5:43 shows that “Jesus” is the Father’s name and thus that Jesus is the Father.
John 5:43 “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
Notice that the second part of this verse insinuates that one who comes “in his own name” is not to be “received.” If Jesus was actually the Father which would literally make His name Jesus, then He would have been coming “in His own name” and it would have been wrong to receive Him. This contrast between “My Father’s name” and “his own name” proves that Jesus did not come “in his own name.” Therefore, “Jesus” is not the Father’s name, and Jesus is not the Father. This turns out to be a proof text against oneness theology.
4. Oneness apologists claim that John 10:30 proves the Father and the Son are one person.
John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.”
Any first year Greek student will notice that a one-person interpretation of this verse is precluded by the first person plural in the Greek New Testament. A literal translation of this verse would be: “I and the Father we are one.” If Jesus was the Father, He would have used the first person singular and said, “I am the Father.” Furthermore, the Greek word for “one” is in the neuter gender which points to the idea of one in “unity or one essence” (Margin of NASV Bible). The masculine form would have been used to signify one in contrast to many.
5. Oneness pentecostals claim that John 14:6-11 proves that Jesus is God the Father
John 14:6-11 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.”
Notice in the passage that Jesus begins by stating, “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me”(v.6) and later states, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (v.9). Dr. Robert Bowman points out that “the natural sense of these words is that Jesus is, not the Father, but a mediator between us and the Father.” It would be ridiculous for Jesus to claim that no man could come “to” the Father except “through” Him if Jesus and the Father were one and the same person. The words “to” and “through” only make sense if Jesus and the Father are distinct persons, with Jesus being the Mediator between man and the Father. In verse 7, Jesus states, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” Bowman points out that “this is true, not because Jesus is the Father, but because those who know Jesus are led by Him to know the Father as they see Him imaged perfectly in Jesus. Thus, says Jesus, ‘from now on you know Him, and have seen Him’ (v.7b). Existing with the Father as the one indivisible Divine Being, Jesus can say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father’ (v.9). Nevertheless, Jesus does not say, ‘I am the Father,’ but rather, ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in Me’ (v.10, repeated in v.11; and 10:38).” oneness believers frequently cite the second part of this last statement, “the Father is in Me,” to mean that the deity (”Father”) dwells in the humanity (”Son”) of Jesus. This view, however, is clearly faulty in light of the first part of the sentence, “I am in the Father,” which in oneness terms would mean that the human nature of Jesus dwells in His deity. No oneness pentecostal believes the humanity of Jesus dwelt in the divinity of Jesus. Moreover, it fails to account for the fact that in this same context, as well as elsewhere, Jesus uses this sort of expression to denote His unity with believers: “In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you” (v.20; and 17:21-23).
6. Oneness apologists interpret John 17:6,11-12 as proof that “Jesus” is the Father’s name and therefore that Jesus is the Father.
John 17:6,11-12 “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word… And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
Oneness writers point to the words “manifested” and “gave” in order to claim that Jesus was the Father’s name, and that the Father “gave” His name to Jesus, as evidence that Jesus is the Father. They overlook the fact that a human father can give his name to his son, without the father and son being the same person! Furthermore, it should be noted from this passage that Jesus said twice that His disciples were “in Thy (the Father’s) name.” If oneness believers interpret this phrase in a consistent manner with the way they interpret it in John 5:43, they are left with the ridiculous conclusion that the disciples are the Father! The oneness interpretation simply does not work because it is not logically consistent.
7. Oneness writers claim that Col.2:9 proves that Jesus is God the Father and Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
Since Colossians 2:9 says that the fulness of “the Godhead” dwells in Jesus, Oneness writers have argued that the Godhead is in Jesus, not Jesus in the Godhead. This either/or approach, however, causes the oneness interpretation of Colossians 2:9 to contradict their interpretation of John 10:38 where Jesus states, “the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.” Since “the Father” in oneness theology is “the Godhead,” John 10:38 in their terms would mean that the Godhead is in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Godhead. When Oneness believers deny that “Jesus is in the Godhead,” what they mean to deny is that Jesus is one person in a triune Godhead. Colossians 2:9, though, does not rule out that possibility. What it affirms is that Jesus is no less than the full and complete revelation of God’s nature (’theotetos’, “deity”) in the flesh. While not all three persons of God are incarnate in Jesus, all of God’s essence is incarnate in Jesus.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The doctrine of the trinity declares a plurality of Gods,not a single God.
That is why they speak of God the Father,God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.This is not true.
John 4:24 establishes the premise that-God is a Spirit:
2 Corinthians 5:19 states that -God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,
You are also incorrect about colossians 2:9 allow me to use the Amplified
Bible version -For in Him the whole fullness of Deity(the Godhead) continues
to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature].
10 And you are in Him,made full and having come to fullness of life[in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead-Father,Son and Holy Spirit-
You will always find someones version of the Bible to support your
idea of who God is ,especially considering that trinitarians are the ones producing the script. Of course they will support your position,We use the
same versions and can still make our case because they cannot hide the truth.Still they do take away a little more each rewrite to their own end.
You are unaware of your own doctrine,there cannot possibly be three Gods in the Godhead. In Isaiah 44:6 the Lord says-I am the first,and I am the last;beside me there is no God.One sits on the throne,but God is a Spirit,how can this be? In Revelation 21:13 Jesus proclaims(words of Christ in red)I am Alpha and Omega,the first and the last.There is no other God,so who is speaking in Isaiah?
In your own words Isaiah 9:6 says: (Darby) For unto us a child is born,
unto us a son is given,(and this child,this son)shall be called the Mighty God.
No wonder Matthew 1:23 says-Behold,a virgin shall be with child,and shall bring forth a son,and they shall call his name Emmanuel,God with us.
Hebrews 13:8-Jesus Christ(is)the same yesterday,and to day,and for ever.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Jim, those of us who believe in the Trinity believe in only One God. The assertion that we believe in three Gods is incorrect. See my analogy of fire in a previous post.
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/oneness.htm
Here is a portion from the link above entitled, “An Examination and Refutation of the Denial of the
Doctrine of the Trinity by Oneness Pentecostalism”
Boyd, an ex-Oneness Pentecostal has drawn attention to the lack of literature that has been produced by the evangelical community on the subject of Oneness Pentecostalism. Despite the vast amount of literature that has been written on other new religious movements and contemporary world religions, most Christian authors hardly ever mention this very large heretical movement. 1 Oneness believers often appear orthodox in their belief in the nature of God due to their strict monotheism and confession that Jesus Christ is the one true God manifest in the flesh. 2 Bowman observes that it is because of this seeming orthodoxy that many Christians do not see anything wrong with their theology, on the contrary, many are even attracted by it. 3 For this reason many Christians of initial Trinitarian persuasion (Pentecostals in particular) have joined their ranks. 4 Boyd observes how former professing Trinitarians constitute the largest single group of people who convert to the Oneness movement. In the eyes of Oneness believers, Trinitarian churches are ripe to proselytise. 5
How the Oneness Position Differs From Trinitarianism
Despite its seeming orthodoxy, Oneness Pentecostalism differs significantly from classic Pentecostalism on account of its belief in the nature of God. Oneness believers, along with groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way International, and The Church of God International, completely rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and claim that it is pagan in origin. 6 It is also argued that the doctrine of the Trinity should be rejected because it is unscriptural. Graves criticises nonbiblical Trinitarian terminology such as ‘Trinity’ and ‘Persons’ as evidence against the Trinity being unbiblical. 7 Instead, Oneness Pentecostals adhere to the belief that God is absolutely one in numerical value, Jesus Christ is fully God, and that there is no place for a plurality of Persons within the one God. 8 It is reasoned that Trinitarianism implies belief in not one God but three separate gods, and hence falls into the error of Tritheism. 9 While Trinitarians understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as referring to the Persons of the Trinity, Oneness theologians believe that these refer to three ways in which the one Person (the Father), or one God manifests Himself. 10 This teaching is brought into harmony by the cross referencing of two Scriptures in particular, Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. It is argued that the ‘name’ (singular) of Matthew 28:19 that believers are baptised into is ‘Jesus’, as is found in the book of Acts. From this, it is therefore deduced that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are one Person who is called Jesus. 11 Oneness exponents not only contend that the doctrine of the Trinity is totally incompatible with the biblical teaching of Monotheism, and the Deity of Christ, but state that belief in the Trinity actually detracts from them. Sabin, accuses Trinitarians of denying the full Deity of Christ because they view Him as being distinct from the Father. 12 However, despite these serious accusations, it is actually the opposite which is true. When the facts are closely examined it soon becomes apparent that it is actually Oneness Christology that detracts from the full Deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. 13
Trinitarianism Defined
Bowman observes that the first premise within Trinitarian doctrine is that God is only one. 14 It is this truth that Trinitarians have always affirmed as an indisputable fact, being found in both Old and New Testament records (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 42:8; 44:6; Mark 12:29; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:9). But despite these affirmations, Oneness adherents, along with other anti- Trinitarian groups consistently accuse Trinitarians of worshipping three god’s. 15 Much of this misrepresentation often comes from a misunderstanding of the word ‘Person’ when used to refer to the distinctions within Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). 16 Modern day understanding of the word usually denotes an individual that is completely independent of others even to the point of being at variance with them. 17 Despite this contemporary thought original Greek and Latin terms used of the word person (prosopon, persona) did not originally carry with them the meaning that is associated with the word today; that is to say these terms did not necessarily ascribe any separate kind of consciousness or will. 18 Prestige notes how the word originally meant ‘face’, up until the fifth century when it came to mean ‘representative’ or ‘type’. 19 The Christian doctrine of perichoresis, or mutual indwelling of the three Persons, whereby all of God is present in each Person, acts as a safeguard against charges of Tritheism. 20 In Trinitarianism, the word Person is merely used as a convenient shorthand to refer to the distinctions that exist in the one eternal God. To speak of three eternal and Divine Persons in this sense is to recognise the relationships that exist between the Three. 21 These relationships are clearly seen threaded throughout the New Testament: the Father sends the Son into the world (John 3:16, Gal. 4:4, 1 John 4:9) and both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; Gal. 4:6). The Father speaks to and of the Son as another (Mark 1:11; John 12:28; Heb. 1:8-12), as does the Son to the Father (Matt. 11:25; 36:39; John 17); and the Son likewise addresses the Holy Spirit as another (John 14:16-17; 25-26; 16:5-15) who glorifies the Son (John 16:14) as the Son glorifies the Father (John 17:1-4). 22 To be able to do these things clearly indicates that the Father, Son and Spirit are more than the one Person who is operating in different modes. Each is referred to as a ‘He’ as opposed to an ‘it’ and as ‘Another’ as opposed to a ‘thing’. 23 Trinitarians freely admit that the word Person does have its limitations; however, no other word has been successfully agreed upon which has led to the traditional word being retained despite the limitations and misunderstandings that it brings with it. 24 The present writer observes how such terminology is not always unavoidable, even for those who profess Oneness. For example, Oneness believers and Trinitarians alike will agree that God is a Person; however this could be mistaken to mean that God is a Person in the sense that He is a human being. But if the word Person was not used at all, some may arrive at the mistaken conclusion that God is an impersonal force. The truth is, when finite humanity speaks of a Being who is infinite, limitations in terminology are inevitable.
The above is also true of the charge that Trinitarians are in error because non-biblical words like ‘Trinity’ are used to explain their position when speaking of God. Although this kind of reasoning is popular in non-Trinitarian circles it cannot be consistently sustained. Oneness believers, like Trinitarians, also employ unbiblical words to express their beliefs. Words like ‘millennium’, ‘theocracy’, and ‘incarnation’ are often used but not found in the Bible. 25 This, however, does not mean that what these words seek to express is untrue; they are simply used in such a way to better express and explain one’s position. The same can also be said with Trinitarian terminology. 26
Matthew 28:19
The ‘name’ in Matthew 28:19 has long been a subject of contention between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals. 27 Oneness believers insist that because the name is singular it must be referring to Jesus on account of the baptismal pattern in the book of Acts (2:38; 8:16; 19:5 etc.). From this it is not only concluded that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but that it is absolutely essential that baptism is administered in His name only, if one hopes to be saved. 28 The first thing that can be said in response to the name of Jesus applying to Father, Son and Spirit is that it would be contrary to the general teaching of the New Testament. As was seen, the overall biblical witness testifies to a distinction between the three. It would therefore be most unlikely to conclude that Jesus was in some way cryptically referring to Himself as all three in this one verse. 29 It should be observed that there were long established Greek and Semitic traditions in existence in the first century milieu that understood the phrase ‘in the name of’ to have an extensive variety of meaning. 30 For example, Matthew 10:40-42 speaks of receiving a prophet ‘in the name of’ a prophet, a righteous man ‘in the name of’ a righteous man etc, clearly meaning to receive such a one because of who they were and not by simply receiving them with the words “I greet you in the name of a prophet.” 31 In Rabbinical literature, it is recorded that pagan slaves were expected to receive a baptism ‘in the name of slavery’ (understood to mean ‘being immersed into’) when coming under the roof of a Jewish family. 32 Samaritans would circumcise ‘in the name of Mount Gerizim’ (understood to mean that an obligation to the God of the Samaritans who is worshipped there was expected). 33 In the light of the historical context surrounding the phrase ‘in the name of,’ it is therefore quite probable that the pattern in Matthew 28:19 was originally understood to mean something like ‘in the authority of’, 34 or ‘for the sake of’ the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 35 The same can also be said of the book of Acts when it speaks of baptism being administered ‘in Jesus name’. 36 It should also be noticed that the early Church was never bound by precise baptismal formulas which would account for the variations found in the New Testament. 37
– I encourage you to examine this topic in depth.
God bless
Mitchell
October 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Revelation 20:11 says”And I saw a great white throne,and him that sat upon it” If God is a Spirit,as John 4:24 says,then it makes sense that the one sitting on the throne is Jesus.Considering the fact according to the scripture
that,God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself(2 Cor.5:19)
2 Cor.4:4 also says”Christ,who is the image of God”
It does not surprise me that you do not accept Jesus for who he really is,
every time He tried to tell His own people who He was they tried to stone Him.
John 14:8 “Philip said unto him,Lord,shew us the Father”In verse 9 Jesus said unto him,Have I been so long time with you,and yet hast thou not known me,Philip?he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;and how sayest thou then,Show us the Father?
John 1:10-He was in the world,and the world was made by him,and the world knew him not.
Who is Jesus?The scripture says in many more than two verses,that Jesus is God.Read all the man made thinking you would like,it simply is leading you and many others away from the truth of God in Christ.John 3:3 says,you must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God(meaning to understand,to comprehend)Seek ye first,the kingdom of God,and all these other things will be revealed to you in time.God bless you with the free gift of His Spirit.Jim
October 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Sigh… Maranatha. Come Lord Jesus.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Jim, Jesus is God, we agree. The previous links I posted should help you to understand the Trinitarian position clearly. I’ll post the rest of the article:
The Trinity and Paganism
It has long been a popular practice in non-Trinitarian circles to draw parallels between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the pagan trinities of other religions. 38 It should therefore come as no surprise that Oneness believers also follow this same line of reasoning. 39 However, criticism of this kind is not based on sound reasoning and is really a falsification that has no real parallels with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity at all. Bowman observes that while it is true that pagan civilisations did indeed believe in triadic deities, these were always three separate god’s (as in Tritheism) who were often the three most eminent god’s at the top of a pantheon of other lesser god’s (as in Polytheism). 40
The Father and the Son in Oneness Theology
In Trinitarian thought the Father and the Son speak to one another and defer to one another as distinct Persons. Oneness theology however, argues that the Father and the Son are not two Persons but rather the two natures within the one Person - Jesus Christ. 41 The Son is considered to be the humanity of Christ, (the obvious implication being that the Son is not God) 42 and the Father (who is called Jesus) is considered to be the divinity of Christ. 43 Therefore, as unusual as it may sound, Jesus is both the Father and the Son who sent His Son, and the Son who was obedient to the Father who sent Him. Furthermore, He was also the Son who prayed to and heard the Father and the Father who heard and answered the Son. 44 The many biblical texts that clearly show relationship between the Father and the Son, such as John 14:16; 17:5 etc., are often interpreted as being a type of illusion assumed by Christ so that He could fulfil His role as mediator to man. 45 In addition to this, Oneness theologians often argue that the many salutations contained within the New Testament Epistles (Eph. 1:2; Phil, 1:2; Thess. 1:1 etc.) do not refer to distinctions between the Father and the Son as Trininitarians have traditionally understood them to mean, but rather ‘prove’ that Jesus is indeed the Father. 46 This interpretation is arrived at by the use of the Greek word kai. Bernard points out that kai (often translated “and”) should be translated “even”, so that the salutations would read: “from God our Father, even our Lord Jesus Christ”. 47
The Trinitarian Understanding of the Father and the Son
There are several reasons why the above argumentation is grounded on faulty reasoning. The burden of proof is upon Oneness adherents to show why it is that the Scriptures never distinguish between Jesus and the Son; indeed, the Scriptures refer to Jesus’ identity as the Son of God (Matt. 4:3; Mark 1:20; Luke 1:35; John 3:18 etc.), and most clearly in 2 John 3 where He is referred to as “the Son of the Father.” But never once is Jesus identified as the Father. 48 It should be observed that the preposition ‘of ‘ in 2 John 3 expresses the idea of Christ being of the same nature as the Father but also differentiates between the Father and the Son as distinct Persons. 49 However, despite the clear teaching of the Scriptures, Oneness theologians maintain that any texts that seem to imply a relationship of Persons is purely illusionary and in reality, it is actually Christ’s two natures that are in operation within the one Person. This kind of interpretation casts an air of doubt and uncertainty upon the many interactions between the Father and the Son in the Gospels. 50 Particularly troublesome to this Oneness interpretation are the many texts that speak of the love that exists between the two Persons (John 3:35; 17:23-26; 14:31 etc.). As Bowman rightly observes, natures cannot love, only persons can. 51 This is also true of the many passages where Jesus speaks to His Father and the Father speaks to Him; natures cannot speak to one another, only persons can. 52 Concerning the Greek word kai, Boyd readily admits that it can indeed mean ‘even’ when context demands it to be such (eg. Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:6). 53 However, the context of the salutations that Oneness scholars argue should be translated ‘even’ clearly point to a distinction between the Father and the Son and should therefore be translated as ‘and’. For example, Boyd refers to Romans 1:7 as a typical salutation whereby Oneness adherents blur the distinctions between the two divine Persons. But an unbiased reading of the immediate context clearly shows Christ to be one who is distinguished from the Father (His Son 1:1-4; through Jesus Christ 1:8-9). 54 As well as being distinct from the Father this does not exclude the Son from being God ( Heb. 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Son should therefore be equally honoured as God in the same way that the Father is honoured as God (John 5:23).
Jesus as the Father
Isaiah 9:6
Brumback observes how Isaiah 9:6 is the one verse in the entire Bible that gives Christ the title ‘Father’ and is therefore seized upon by Oneness adherents as ‘proof’ that Jesus is God the Father. 55 It should first be observed that this verse can also be translated ‘Father of eternity’, or ‘Father of the ages’ (even Oneness theologians will agree to this). 56 The Hebrew word for Father (av or ab) is used in accordance with Hebrew and Aramaic custom where the one who possesses something is said to be the father of it. For example, Abialbon (2 Sam. 23:31), ‘father of strength’, means ’strong’; Abiasaph (Ex. 6:24), ‘father of gathering’, means ‘gatherer’. Therefore, in keeping with the Hebrew custom, the title ‘everlasting Father’ is simply declaring the eternal nature of Christ. 57 This particular understanding of the passage is perfectly consistent with the Trinitarian belief that Christ is the one true eternal God, who transcends all time and eternity (c.f. Rev. 1:8, 17). 58
John14:7-11
Another very common proof text used in an attempt to ‘prove’ that Jesus is the Father is John 14:7-11. 59 In one sense it is perfectly legitimate to say that some manifestation of the Father is seen in Christ because He shares and reflects the same Divine nature (c.f. Heb. 1:3) 60 But to conclude that Jesus is Himself the Father is to go beyond what the text actually says and ignore both the context of the chapter and the consistent title of Son of God used throughout John’s Gospel. Contrary to what Oneness believers think about this passage of Scripture, Jesus does not say “I am the Father”, but simply declares the mutual indwelling that exists between the Father and Himself (vv. 10-11). 61 The immediate context of this passage strongly testifies to Christ’s distinctiveness from the Father (vv. 2, 6-7, 12, 16, 20-21, 26, 28 see especially v. 23 “We” and “Our”).
Jesus as the Holy Spirit
2 Corinthians 3:17
A classic prooftext that is cited to argue the Oneness belief that Jesus is the Holy Spirit is 2 Corinthians 3:17 where the Lord is described as the Spirit. 62 Even outside Oneness circles some scholars also interpret this text to mean that Christ is the Spirit. 63 However, it can be demonstrated that there are a number of significant reasons why this interpretation is inaccurate. It should be noted that this verse does not say “Jesus is the Spirit”; the Oneness view would perhaps be more convincing if this was the case, but instead, it has to be assumed that the one spoken of as the Lord is a reference to Jesus. 64 Although Paul certainly viewed the activity of the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit very closely, he clearly distinguishes between the two in verses 3-6 of the same chapter. Paul also distinguishes between Jesus and the Spirit immediately after stating that the Lord is the Spirit when he calls the Spirit the Spirit of the Lord. As Boyd states: “Paul…is clearly making some distinction between “the Lord” and “the Spirit of the Lord” who is also “Lord.” 65 In context, the passage is concerned with the Lord to whom Moses turns to in Exodus 34:33ff and the Apostle Paul’s allegorising of that event in Israel’s history. The shining but veiled face of Moses representing the old covenant, is contrasted with the new covenant of the Spirit. Therefore, for Paul to refer to the Spirit as the Lord to whom those under the new covenant experience the presence of, is to make an identification with Yahweh God of the Old Testament to whom Moses turned. 66 This identification of the Spirit as Yahweh God, the Lord, is perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief in the full Personhood and Deity of the Spirit.
Romans 8:9-11
Another popular prooftext used in arguing that Jesus is the Holy Spirit is Romans 8:9-11. The first thing that can be said of this text is that the phrase “The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus…” immediately suggests a distinction between Jesus and the Spirit. Dodd shows how Paul is not identifying Christ with the Holy Spirit as one and the same Person, but rather the apparent equation of Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, and Christ in you, is merely a typical way in which Paul viewed the activity of the Spirit in the life of the believer as being closely associated with the presence of Christ Himself. 67 This is in perfect consistency with the fact that the early Christians were a fellowship who lived their life in the Spirit, and realised that their experience of the Spirit in their life of faith and worship would naturally bring them into close relationship with Christ, whereby His presence would be made manifest. 68 Paul, therefore, is simply stating that wherever the Spirit of God is present in the life of the believer something of Christ is indeed present in the Person of the Holy Spirit, but this by no means blurs Christ and the Spirit into one Person. 69
The Pre-existence of the Son of God
Although Oneness Pentecostals profess to be firm believers in the full Deity of Jesus Christ this cannot be consistently affirmed. Because the Oneness position holds that the Son is the mere created human nature of Jesus Christ, they also deny that He pre-existed in eternity, with the Father, but instead came into being at His birth in Bethlehem nearly 2000 years ago. 70 Passages that clearly speak of God creating through Christ (implying distinction) are often interpreted as God creating all things simply with the envisaged Son in mind. 71 In addition to this view, some Oneness writers simply assert that Christ pre-existed as the Father, but not as the Son. 72
The prologue of John’s Gospel is a strong witness to the truth of the pre-existence of the Son. 73 John 1:1a clearly states the pre-existence of Christ as the eternal Word (logos) by the use of the phrase en arch en ho logos, (”In the beginning was the Word”). Tenney notes how the use of the verb en (which in the imperfect tense implies eternal existence) is significant in this passage because it brings out the importance of the word arch. The phrase could therefore be literally translated: “When the beginning began, the Word was already there.” 74 Having declared the eternal pre-existence of the Word, John 1:1b specifies the relationship and distinctiveness that exists between the Word and the Father with the word pros (”with God”). The sense in which John uses pros indicates an active intercommunion whereby the Persons exist face to face with one another in eternal relationship. 75 The statement in verse 2 further emphasises John 1:1a and b. As well as being distinct from God, the Word Himself is also explicitly called God (John 1:1c), and of course God is personal not impersonal. The Word, therefore, is all that God is, including His full Personhood. 76 The full Deity of the Word is also reinforced in verse 3 where the work of creation is ascribed to Him (c.f. Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:10). However, although the Word is identified as God, this does not mean that He pre-existed as God the Father before His incarnation, as it is occasionally suggested by some Oneness exponents. 77 Brown notes that as well as the obvious relationship that exists between the Father and the Word in John, the omission of the article in John1:1c further avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word as the Father, but at the same time avoids any polytheistic connotations. 78 The personalistic nature of the Word is further seen in verse 14 where the Word is described as coming forth from the Father (not as the Father) and becoming incarnate. It should be observed that the verse does not suggest that the Word only becomes distinct at this point in time because as was seen, this same Word is spoken of as distinct from the Father from the very beginning of John’s Gospel. 79 The testimony of John the Baptist in verse 15 (repeated in v. 30) provides further evidence to the theme of the Son’s pre-existence. It is notable that reference to Jesus existing “before” John is made in the light of the fact that the Baptist was born before Him, and consequently provides an unmistakable allusion to the pre-existence of the Son. The testimony by John the Baptist in the wider context of chapter 1 also invalidates the Oneness explanation of the Son merely existing as the Father prior to the incarnation due to the fact that John identifies this one who was before him as the Lamb of God (v. 29) and the Son of God (v. 34). 80 Furthermore, the Oneness attempt to explain the Baptists testimony as the Son pre-existing in God’s foreknowledge is not convincing because verse 15 (as does the entire prologue) is obviously saying something profound about the Son. But there would be nothing profound about saying the Son only existed in the mind of God because even John the Baptist himself, along with the rest of humanity, can be said to exist in this limited sense. 81 The unique relationship that is shared between the Father and the Son is further expressed by the phrase “Who is in the bosom of the Father” (v.18). Commenting on this, Dr. Beasely-Murray recognises that the phrase denotes the “closest fellowship with Him” (the Father) and although the primary reference is speaking of the incarnate Son of God and God the Father, the context of the prologue naturally implies that this relationship extends to the Son’s pre-existent and post-resurrection relationship with the Father. 82
The Trinity, Oneness, and the History of the Church
Oneness believers argue that the New Testament Christians and the early Church Fathers were Modalistic in their beliefs on the nature of God, 83 and that this pattern continued as the true doctrine of God until apostate leaders (principally the apologists of the second century) who held to the doctrine of the Trinity prevailed against them and drove them out. 84 But despite the claims of Oneness writers there is ample evidence to show that the early Church had a simple belief in one God existing in three Persons. Strong notes how belief in the Trinity was implicitly held by the apostolic Church and the New Testament writers in the first century, but was only formulated and crystallised as an explicit doctrine when abhorrent beliefs concerning the nature of God arose. 85 Before this, none of the New Testament writers saw the need to formulate a thorough definition of the God’s triunity. Wainwright observes that another reason why the early Christians did not define their belief in the nature of God was that they were more concerned with the activity of God in the work of salvation rather than attempting to systemize a finely tuned theology. 86 They are simply content to present information about the Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit which would naturally cause later theologians to reflect on God’s unity in relation to the distinctions that exist between Father, Son, and Spirit. 87 It took the Church over three centuries to grapple with these paradoxical issues and come to a more thorough and systematic understanding of God eternally existing as Three Persons. 88 Because of this significant time period, Oneness theologians often feel that they have further valid criticism against the doctrine of the Trinity as being the invention of a late Church 89 But Lagoon notes how Oneness Pentecostals have no right to criticise Trinitarians on this point because the Oneness belief itself has been steadily evolving throughout the 20th century. 90 When the Scriptures and the ancient writings of the Fathers are examined, and taken at face value, it soon becomes apparent that the Church has always believed in the basic fundamental truths that are foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity. 91
The New Testament Witness to the Trinity
In the Apostolic era a definite pattern of thought was moving towards a triadic understanding of God. This can be discerned from the consistent threefold pattern that runs throughout the New Testament record. Often, this pattern of thinking appears to be an unconscious one, because in most occurrences the New Testament writers simply state belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit while at the same time betray almost no awareness of any problem as to how these three exist in relation to one another within God’s unity. 92 Kelly recognises that throughout the New Testament there are many Trinitarian patterns where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of in such an incidental way that it appears that this type of language was already commonly accepted in the early Church and deeply embedded within Christian thought from the very beginning. 93 Threefold patterns are clearly discerned in numerous passages (for example: Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 1:21f.; 13:14; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; 4:14; Eph. 1:3-14; Heb. 10:29; Jude 20f.). 94 Kelly observes that “The Trinitarian ground-plan obtrudes itself obstinately throughout, and its presence is all the more striking because more often than not there is nothing in the context to necessitate it.” 95
The supreme biblical pattern of Trinitarian thought, as with Christ’s pre-existence, appears in the Johannine testimony. In several passages the three Divine Persons are mentioned together (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:13-15; 20:21-22; 1 John 4:2; 4:13-14). 96 In typical Trinitarian fashion, John does not hesitate to call Jesus God (John 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20), but at the same time, the relationship between the Father and the Son is clearly evident, more so than in any other New Testament writing. It is therefore apparent that John was aware of the problem that Christians were faced with when reconciling God’s unity with the three distinct Persons. 97 As Wainwright notes, John was not inventing the Trinity, but was merely explaining an association that was already recognised and accepted amongst the first Christian believers. 98
The Witness of the Early Church Fathers to the Trinity
The writings of the early Church Fathers also give evidence to show how common it was for the early Christian community to continue to recognise clear distinctions within the one God. Throughout his first letter Clement speaks of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit in such a way that can only imply some sort of distinction. For example, he writes of Christ calling His people through the Holy Spirit to live righteously. 99 Immediately after this exhortation, in the next paragraph, the Father is specifically referred to. 100 Clement distinguishes Christ from God (the Father) as being sent by God and from God as the Apostles were sent from Christ. 101 Following this, he goes on to use a three fold Trinitarian pattern whereby he speaks of “God’s will…, the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ…” and “the confidence of the Holy Spirit”. 102 This kind of Trinitarian language appears most significantly in two passages cited by Prestige: “For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit (Who are the faith and hope of the elect)…”, 103 and “Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of God poured out upon us?” 104
Bernard names Ignatius 105 as being a leader in the early Church who stressed Modalism. 106 However, throughout his book Bernard does not provide any references from Ignatius to support this theory. As with Clement, a Trinitarian pattern of writing can be discerned in Ignatius’ letters. For example, he declares how “…Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.” 107 When writing to the Magnesians he encourages them to prosper “…in the Son, and Father and Spirit.” 108 Fortman notes that the most famous threefold pattern declares: “You are stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit.” 109
Despite the apparent orthodox statements of the Oneness movement, reflected in their strict monotheism and confession that Jesus Christ is the one true God manifest in the flesh, Oneness believer’s have made it abundantly clear that they reject the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan and unscriptural, and consequently place themselves outside historic Christianity. Although Trinitarians understand ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ as referring to the Persons of the Trinity, Oneness theologians reject the idea of any plurality in the Godhead and teach the ancient Modalistic doctrine whereby Father, Son and Spirit are three ways in which the one Person (the Father) manifests Himself. It has been noted that the most obvious problem with this view is that it is contrary to the general teaching of the New Testament, as well as the clear relationships that exist between the Three. The Oneness view of the Trinity is particularly defective in its teaching on the Person of Jesus Christ. The denial of the personal and distinct pre-existence of the Son has been shown to be without foundation from the prologue of John alone. It has been demonstrated that the assertion that the Son is to be identified as the humanity of Christ and the Father, who is called Jesus, as the Divinity of Christ is unscriptural. The Scriptures never distinguish between Jesus and the Son but rather refer to Jesus’ identity as ‘the Son of God’, or ‘the Son of the Father’; and not once is Jesus identified as the Father. Oneness Christology, therefore actually confuses Christ’s Person, and detracts from His full Deity as the Son of God. In Trinitarian thought the Father and the Son speak to one another, love one another, and defer to one another as distinct Persons; something that only Persons, and not natures can do. The Trinitarian position maintains that the Son should be equally honoured as God in the same way that the Father is honoured as God. Proof texts that Oneness believers offer to support their position (Matt. 28:19; Isa. 9:6; John 14:7-11; 2 Cor. 3:17; Rom. 8:9-11) have actually shown to be at variance with their theology rather than be in support of it. The Oneness claim that the New Testament Christians and the early Church Fathers were Modalistic in their beliefs on the nature of God has been proven to be historically misleading. It has been demonstrated that although Trinitarian belief was not always consciously taught in an explicit manner, there is every evidence that the basic fundamental truths that are foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity were certainly held by first century Christians and the early Church Fathers alike, and have continued to remain as foundational to this present day.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
It is more than just natures ,but relational terms, for instance God is my father but he not God the Son or my son, This is realtioal term beteween the sepertaion of Spirit and Flesh (Jesus God on earth in Flesh) On the history part perhaps there were some (most likley gentiles with pagan back grounds that may have held trinity beliefs) but there were also gnostics already at work within the flock, and some of there teaching also exisit in the churches today as doctrine.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Also many of us including myself were fisrt braught up in trinity churches
very farmilure with the doctrine inside and out From history and scripiture And there are more than just the two views being discussed here about this. For instance one the great Scism’s had to do with the Nature of God along these lines.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Bryan,I was brought up in a disciples of Christ church myself.I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost in 1995 in what Mitchell calls a Oneness Pentecostal
church.More specifically we are Apostolic Pentecostals.
It will never cease to amaze me how far Trinitarians are willing to go to establish their doctrine,always seeking to divide the One True God.I on the other hand,try not to debate,but there are a few subjects to which I will answer the call.
Mitchell,I do not understand why you found it necessary to use the words of
a backslider to link Pentecostals to the likes of Jehovahs’ witness.After all
they do not even know who Jehovah is.In Jesus Jehovah has become my salvation.
For your consideration:
John 1:1-In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.
verse 14-And the Word was made flesh,and dwelt among us,(and we beheld his glory,the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)full of grace and truth.
So according to these verses in the beginning was (Jesus) the Word,and
the Word(the plan of God which was first in the mind of God)was with God
and the Word(Jesus,the plan of God)was God (Himself).
Verse 14 refers to Him as the only begotten of the Father,the definition
means He was the only one of His kind.There is only one God,one of a kind
Jesus is the One.
1 John 3:16-Hereby perceive we the love of God,because he laid down his life for us:…When did God die on the cross?
Jesus is the Son of man in His humanity,Son of God in the Spirit,never the less,while the time He spent among mankind He was still fully God.
1 Timothy 3:16-And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:God was manifest in the flesh,justified in the Spirit,seen of angels,preached unto the Gentiles,believed on in the world,received up into glory.
The person of God is no doubt controversial,as we have proven here,God
is to many a mystery.God was manifest in the flesh,in the form of Jesus.
God was justified in the Spirit,when He chose to take His life back again.
God was seen of angels for the very first time in the face of Jesus.
Then God was received back up into glory when Jesus ascended back into
heaven to His seat of power(referred to as the right hand of God)God only had a hand when He was manifest in the flesh.God is a Spirit,referred to
as the Holy Ghost.Jesus said-I will not leave you comfortless I will come to you(in the form of the Holy Ghost,the Spirit of God).
The fact of who Jesus is has been denied for 2 thousand years,that will not change no matter how many words you throw at me.The Emperor
Charlemagne came up with the idea of the trinity,at the council of Nicaea
in 325 A.D. He also change the name of the godess Diana to Mary to bring
the pagans into the Catholic church,denying the baptismal formula that had
been in place since the beginning of the church,from the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,to Father ,Son and Holy Ghost.No where in the Book of Acts is anyone baptized in any other way than in the name of Jesus.
In John 8:58-before Abraham was,I am.The Jews knew exactly what He was saying,because in the next verse they picked up stones to stone him.
He was saying I AM,the One True God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush,not the second person in a triune Godhead of which you know nothing about.
There is no distinction between the Father,Son and Holy Ghost the three
are One,not three in One.There is only One God,that is the faith established by God,passed to Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.That truth remained in the day of Jesus when He said the first and greatest commandment is Hear,O Israel the Lord your God is One Lord,not three in one Lord.That truth was changed in 325A.D.
The early church was a sect of Judaism,these truths did not change with
the New Testament,they can not change.His Word is forever settled.
Perhaps we Oneness Pentecostals are more a kin to the Hasidic or Messianic Jews of today.So was all the church-One Lord,one faith,one baptism-before man kind through his worldly thinking got so wrapped up
in trying to figure out the mystery of the person of God.Jehovah,Yah,Yeshuah.
Isaiah 12:1-3And in that day thou shalt say,O LORD,I will praise thee:though thou wast angry with me,thine anger is turned away,and thou comfortedst me.
Behold,God is my salvation(my yeshuah,my Jesus);I will trust,and not be afraid:for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song;he also is become my salvation(my Yeshuah,my Jesus).
Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation(Yeshuah,Jesus).
Nothing shall separate us from the love of God.No matter how hard you try to separate HIM.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Jim, I do not believe that someone who changes from Oneness to Trinitarianism is a backslider. In my opinion they’ve come to the Truth regarding the nature of God as revealed in the whole of Scripture.
I believe that the doctrine of Oneness is a false doctrine that is not taught in Holy Scripture.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Mitchell
Do a computer word search of the Bible and search God is three, trininty and see what results come up.
Do the same search For God is one. Lord is one and compare these results and tell me waht the results are then tell me this is taught in scripture.