Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness

[Jason B]

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was going to post some ridiculous quotes from Wayne Grudem. These quotes are from the chapter on the Trinity in his book "Bible Doctrine" which is a condensed version of his Systematic Theology.

While some here may not count Grudem as a true believer, I do. I have enjoyed reading this book, and I'm not posting this in the spirit of spiritual arrogance. I am posting it because trinitarians (including Grudem) will say that a oneness view of the Godhead is heretical. They will also tell us how ridiculous we are to suggest they worship three gods, that we are bound for hell, and that the scriptures are clear on this.

But as you will see, Mr. Grudem calls the "Trinity" a "fact", says that God exists as "three persons" is a fact, and calls these persons at times not only distinct (historically orthodox trinitarian language) but also "separate" and "individuals". I'm thinking this is like unto the "fact" of evolution. :heeheehee

In contradiction to the thousands of singular pronouns used to refer to God in the scripture, you will notice the repeated use of the plural to refer to God/the Trinity as "they, them, their, personS, individuals, etc".

However the biggest offense to me is the fact that while these same people condemn us (oneness folks) they repeatedly talk about how incomprehensible the doctrine of the Trinity is and how impossible it is to understand. So then, I guess we will burn in hell over something that is by their admission is impossible to understand?!

And finally, after squirming through a whole chapter admitting that the Trinity SEEMS to be a contradiction (but he suggests really isn't, only a mystery) and SEEMS to be tritheism (but he says it isn't because the Bible doesn't allow us to say there is more than one God), Grudem finishes the chapter by comparing the Godhead (Trinity) to an ATHLETIC TEAM!

Now I have been vocal on here about my belief that All trinitarians are NOT lost, however when it comes to this debate, and all the mud slinging that goes on. Instead of slinging mud, I will just simply say in humility, that I don't see how the doctrine of the trinity teaches there there is One God in any sensible use of the word One.

Please share your thoughts, or respond directly to the quotes below:

The quotes:
“God, in his very being has always existed as more than one person. In fact God exists as three persons, yet he is one God.” Pg.104

“We may define the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.” Pg.104

“Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly found in the Old Testament, several passages suggest that God exists as more than one person.” Pg. 104

“Moreover, there are passage where one person is called “God” or “the Lord” and is distinguished from another person who is called God….(references Psalm 45:6-7)…So two SEPARATE PERSONS are called “God”. Pg. 105

“Jesus rightly understands that David is referring to TWO SEPARATE PERSONS as “Lord”. Pg. 105

“But even without the New Testament teaching on the Trinity, it seems clear that David was aware of a plurality of persons in one God.” Pg. 105

“The Angel of the Lord seems to be a distinct person who is fully divine.” Pg. 105

[Speaking of Jesus’ baptism] “Here at once we have three MEMEBERS of the Trinity performing three distinct activities. God the Father is speaking from heaven; God the Son is being baptized…and God the Holy Spirit is descending from heaven.” Pg. 106

“The doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery that we will never be able to fully understand.” Pg. 106

“The FACT that God is THREE PERSONS means that….” Pg. 106

“Believers throughout all ages can only be baptized into the name of God himself.” Pg. 109

“Up to this point we have two conclusions, both abundantly taught throughout Scripture:
1. God is three persons
2. Each person is fully God
If the Bible only taught these two facts, there would be no logical problem at all in fitting them together, for THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION WOULD BE THAT THERE ARE THREE GODS. The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. We would have a system in which there are three equally divine beings. Such a system of belief would be called polytheism—or, more specifically, “tritheism”, or belief in three Gods. But that is far from what the Bible teaches.” Pg. 110

“3. There is one God. The THREE DIFFERENT PERSONS of the Trinity are not only one in purpose and in agreement on what THEY think, but are one in essence in their essential nature.” Pg. 110

“But in the Trinity, each of the persons is not just a separate part of God, each person is fully God.” Pg. 111

“It might be said that the Trinity is something like a man who is both a farmer, the mayor of his own town, and an elder in his church. He functions in different roles at different times, but he is one man. HOWEVER, this analogy is very deficient because there is only one person doing these three activities at different times, and the analogy cannot deal with the personal interaction among the MEMBERS of the Trinity. (In fact, this analogy simply teaches the heresy of modalism)” Pg. 111

“It is interesting that scripture nowhere uses any analogies to teach the doctrine of the Trinity.” Pg. 111

“But such a solution would deny the FACT that the THREE PERSONS are DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS…” Pg. 111

“Finally, as we noted above [Grudem wrestles with the obvious contraditions of the Tirnity doctrine and tries to sell the reader on how to reconcile this apparent contradiction of three distinct individual persons who are God, yet there is only one God], a simple solution could come by denying that there is one God. But this would result in a belief in three Gods, something clearly contradictory to Scripture.” Pg.112

“A final possible way to attempt an easy reconciliation of the biblical teaching about the Trinity would be to deny that there is only one God. The result is to say that God is three persons and each person is fully God. Therefore there are three Gods. Technically this view would be called “tritheism”. Pg. 114

“It [a tritheistic view of the Trinity] has similarities to many ancient pagan religions that held to a multiplicity of gods. “ Pg. 114

“Although no modern groups advocate tritheism, perhaps many evangelicals today unintentionally tend toward tritheistic views of the Trinity.” PG. 115

“The economy of the Trinity means the different ways the three persons act as they relate to the world and to each other.” Pg. 115-116

“God has always existed as three persons.” Pg. 117

“The only distinctions between the MEMBERS of the Trinity are in the ways THEY relate to each other and to the creation In those relationships THEY carry out roles that are appropriate to EACH PERSON.” Pg. 117

“From this discussion it is clear that this tri-personal form of being is far beyond our ability to comprehend.” Pg. 120

“But the existence of THREE PERSONS in one God is something beyond our understanding.” Pg. 121

“Can we understand the Trinity? We should be warned by the errors that have been made in the past. They have all come about through attempts to simplify the doctrine of the Trinity and make it completely understandable , removing all mystery from it. This we can never do. However, it is not correct to say that we cannot understand the doctrine of the Trinity at all. Certainly we can understand and know that God is three persons, and that each person is fully God, and that there is one God. We can know these things because the Bible teaches them….We wonder how there can be three distinct persons and each person have the whole being of God in himself, and yet God is only one undivided being. This we are unable to understand. …But it should also be said that scripture does not ask us to believe in a contradiction…But to say that God is THREE PERSONS and there is one God is not a contradiction. It is something we do not understand, and it is therefore a mystery or a pradox.” Pg. 121
“On a more everyday level, there are many activities that we carry out as human beings (in the labor force, in social organizations, in musical performances, in athletic teams, for example) in which many distinct individuals contribute to a unity or purpose or activity….we can see a faint reflection of the glory of God in his Trinitarian existence. Though we will never fully comprehend the mystery of the Trinity…” Pg, 122

[Michael The Disciple]

“But in the Trinity, each of the persons is not just a separate part of God, each person is fully God.” Pg. 111

This sums up Trinitarianism for me. I have heard this kind of teaching over and over.

I want to be as charitable as I can toward the Trins, remembering I was among them for 4 or 5 years.

At the same time I feel it is valid in the light of all you have posted here for us as Oneness believers to evangelize them. Yes any of them or anyone else who has the Holy Spirit baptism is accepted by YHWH.

And yet if one rejects light (truth) coming his way he puts himself at risk.

So I say when you look at what Christ said in John 8:24 "If you believe not that I am {he} you shall die in your sins" it dont look good for those who believe such as this man does.

Whether the {he} is really present and refers to the Father, or it is not and refers simply to I AM either is clearly pointing to a Oneness view and exposing anything more.

[Jason B]

I would have expected a little more interaction on this thread. Any thoughts? Houston?

[Jason B]

I have heard some ex-UPC people who now consider themselves trinitarians or semi-trinitarians say that "the Trinity just makes a lot more sense to me."

I'm wondering in regard to the quotes above exactly how it is the Trinity makes "much more sense" than oneness. I'm not saying that to be condescending, I'm curious, because to me all I see is illogical contradiction.

I know that the oneness position has some problems (such as the prayers of Jesus, two witnesses, the Word was with God, etc). But I don't see how believing that there are three distinct separate individual persons who are equally God, and yet to say you believe in One God is LESS problematic. I don't think either position is flawless, but I see much less problems with oneness than trinitarianism.

Charnock? Nakoe? DeltaGutair?

[Michael The Disciple]

Jason, This is a video of me teaching on what I believe to be the more accurate and Biblical view of the Oneness message. Its 64 minutes. It was this perspective of Oneness that enabled me to plant my feet firmly in the Oneness camp.

It seems that this message has been pretty much abandoned by modern Oneness teachers but was held by early Oneness teachers such as John Patterson. I first heard it along this line taught by my Pastor in 1980 who was still involved in the Charismatic Movement when I heard him teach this.

He told me he heard it from John Eckstat a UPC Preacher who died in 1978. I hope this may add some light to the message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQLTYoewJyY&list=UUH75E-E-no8-tTOmXRQW8rg

[Acts 2:38 man]

To me it is simple (like me). "God is a Spirit" Jn 4:24. God is NEVER referred to as "they" that I know of in Scripture. When the three men approached Abraham two of them left and were revealed as angels, and the ONE left was the LORD. Genesis 18. In 1 Kings ONE God sat on the throne and on His right and left hand were not two other "persons" but spiritual entities. Paul said to the Corinthians "there is ONE God the Father(the Spirit),and One Lord Jesus Christ (the Man). 1 John 2:22 SAYS: The Father (Jesus) BECAME the Son.

[houston]

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.

[Michael The Disciple]

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.

He was not speaking to other gods.

God himself, Elohim was an angel.

[Jason B]

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.

Houston what is your opinion of Grudems statements?

Do you think God exists as "three distinct separate individual persons". And should we use the plural "they, their, them" when speaking about God? And if there are three separate individuals who are all God, how then can a trinitarian assert they believe in one God?*

[Jason B]

Houston what is your opinion of Grudems statements?

Do you think God exists as "three distinct separate individual persons". And should we use the plural "they, their, them" when speaking about God? And if there are three separate individuals who are all God, how then can a trinitarian assert they believe in one God?*

*= There's nothing new in Grudem's statements about the Trinity as three persons. The reason I'm highlighting what he wrote is because trinitarians typically try to steer away from the words seperate, individual, etc.

Also Grudem is pretty honest about just how close to tritheism the Trinity is, and I was really suprised that he compared the persons of the Godhead to an athletic team, or an orchestra. Really what is the difference between this view and Hinduism, except that Hinduism doesn't say all their Gods are of the same nature?

[Jason B]

Really what is the difference between this view and Hinduism, except that Hinduism doesn't say all their Gods are of the same nature?

What is the difference?

[Michael The Disciple]

To me the Trinity doctrine IS TRITHEISM. I mean there is no group out there saying they are tritheists. They are just Trins who are true believers.

[Abiding Now]

He was not speaking to other gods.

God himself, Elohim was an angel.

Do what????

[Esaias]

The "angel of YHVH" is YHVH himself.

Anyway, the only reason trinitarianism is monotheistic is because they "are forbidden to say there are three gods".

In other words the doctrine is monotheistic in name only.

[Michael The Disciple]

The "angel of YHVH" is YHVH himself.

Anyway, the only reason trinitarianism is monotheistic is because they "are forbidden to say there are three gods".

In other words the doctrine is monotheistic in name only.

True, if they were a one God faith they would agree with us.

[Michael The Disciple]

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.

In the OT God (Elohim) existed visibly as the Angel Of YHWH.

Jacob, also known as Israel the Father of the twelve tribes only knew God in this way. Note what he told his children on his deathbed.

15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. Genesis 48:15-16

For more info and what I consider the deepest, most accurate version of Oneness doctrine watch the video I posted in this thread.

[Jason B]

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.

Did one person of God say to another (or two others) "Let us"?

If so, 1)if one person speaks to two others, how can you say there is only One God?

2)If one person comes up with a thought/idea that the other two did not and simply agreed with then how can the other "persons" actually be "God" is His essential nature, since obviously the other two lacked a knowledge of all things (omniscience) being able to receive a new/original thought?

[Jason B]

Recently a trinitarian friend prayed for me/with me. He began praying "Father,..." as he prayed he said "and we thank you for giving your life for us.....in Your name we pray". (I've experienced similar things many times)

I think a lot of trinitarians are so simply because they don't know what oneness is, or seminarian trinitarians have poisoned the well against oneness theology. Nevertheless the average untrained trinitarian believes something similar to oneness. In fact that is what Calvin Beisner laments in the opening chapter of his book "God in Three Persons".

[houston]

Jason. Your hand has 4 fingers and a thumb. You can move each separately, but they function together as one hand.

[mfblume]

Recently a trinitarian friend prayed for me/with me. He began praying "Father,..." as he prayed he said "and we thank you for giving your life for us.....in Your name we pray". (I've experienced similar things many times)

I think a lot of trinitarians are so simply because they don't know what oneness is, or seminarian trinitarians have poisoned the well against oneness theology. Nevertheless the average untrained trinitarian believes something similar to oneness. In fact that is what Calvin Beisner laments in the opening chapter of his book "God in Three Persons".

Right. In fact, Beisner also said in that same book that the trinity is not laid out whatsoever in teaching form in the New Testament. Hello? Wake up, Beisner.

[Jason B]

Jason. Your hand has 4 fingers and a thumb. You can move each separately, but they function together as one hand.

Interesting. I've never heard that analogy.

However each finger does not have its own consciousness, will, and personality.

I've not heard the Trinity compared to fingers before, but I have heard it compared to "three men who all share the same (human) nature."

But Bro. Houston, you're good with me. I'm not trying to be insulting in anyway, we both share some similar views on other doctrines, I'm just wanting to know from your POV how trinitarianism makes more sense than oneness, especially in regard to the Grudem quotes I posted.

[houston]

Bro. Houston? LOL. I haven't been called "brother" in a long time. I agree that some trinitarians can sound like tritheists. For the majority of my interaction with them, most do not. For me the trinity makes more sense than oneness. The docrine of the trinity doesn't try to do away with the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that are used in the scripture. People fuss that the trinity isn't found in the OT. This coming from a group that believes in progressive revelation, when it's convenient. :)

My issue (one of them) with oneness is that every preacher I heard "teach" it paints a charicature of trinitarians, attacks it, and then goes out of their way to get around the use of biblical terminology and examples, like Paul's greetings, and Jesus praying to the Father, etc.

That, and my pastor preached something like Nestorianism.

[Jason B]

Bro. Houston? LOL. I haven't been called "brother" in a long time.I agree that some trinitarians can sound like tritheists. For the majority of my interaction with them, most do not.

I find this mostly agreeable. It is the more religiously trained ones that tend to be tritheistic sounding at times. I personally doubt many are actual tritheists, just simply mistaken about the nature of the incarnation.


For me the trinity makes more sense than oneness. The doctrine of the trinity doesn't try to do away with the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that are used in the scripture.
Ok, agreed. I don't see how oneness does this either. I would assert that within trinitarianism they draw the distinctions so sharply that borderline tritheism is the result.

For example (I've shared this here before), a couple years ago I looked forward to hearing John MacArthur speak in a nearby city. I was disappointed that his message was titled "Worshiping the Holy Spirit" and he spent close to an hour talking about how the church rightly glorifies the Father and the Son but has forgotten about the Holy Spirit. He complained that very few hymns were written to/about the Holy Spirit. And basically said the Holy Spirit was being left out by the modern church.

I don't get that. If you only have one God, how can you worship Him, and yet NOT worship Him. For all the distinctions that need to be made, I've always believed that whether we address God in prayer as "Father, Lord Jesus, or even Holy Spirit" we are coming before the same Throne of Grace.
If we sing "Welcome Holy Spirit" I don't think we are saying "Father and Son wait outside". If we sing "O how I love Jesus" I don't think the Holy Spirit's feelings are hurt. I understand the need for distinction, but I see (as a oneness believer) distinctions in office or "modes" (I know its a maligned word) or "manifestations" but not such a division of person that when we pray a standard prayer "Our Father which art in heaven" that the "other two persons" (in a trinitarian view) are not being addressed. Just like Acts 7 Stephen called on God saying "Lord Jesus". I don't think we read that and say he only called on the Son, but not the Father or the Spirit. I just don't see how we can truly say we believe in one God, but make such strong distinctions that for all practical purposes the end result is tritheism. That's what I've found, and many of the guys I enjoy listening to/reading the most are like that. Typically Reformed/Calvinist types that are very Biblically conservative. I like their stuff but they lose me on the godhead. Not because I can't understand, but because I'm not buying it.


My issue (one of them) with oneness is that every preacher I heard "teach" it paints a charicature of trinitarians, attacks it, and then goes out of their way to get around the use of biblical terminology and examples, like Paul's greetings, and Jesus praying to the Father, etc.
I see. But does that change the truth of God? Many Christians have been absolutely terrible witnesses for Christ and Christianity, especially during the dark ages, and even the Reformation. Does that justify the heathen, muslim, and Jew in their rejection of Jesus Christ or the gospel. I agree with you that oneness people have attacked trinitarians as if they were of the debbil, and I think thats wrong. To me I think it is really backlash to being booted from the Assemblies of God. Prior to that the oneness folks didn't seem to mind fellowshipping trinitarians. However in much the same way Trinitarians have put oneness people in the same category with JW's and Mormons, which is just as inaccurate as saying all trinitarians worship 3 gods.


That, and my pastor preached something like Nestorianism.
That can be a doozie. Bad oneness teaching. Oneness like trinitariansism has its share of novel interpretations.

I appreciate your response, but I can't really see why you prefer trinitarianism over oneness except that you feel it makes a better distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. I'm not trying to change you mind as to me this is not a salvation issue (hear all the OPs gasp). However I'm just trying to understand why someone who has been familiar with oneness would switch to trinitarinism, especially in reference to the Grudem quotes. So I'll ask you a more direct question. Does your current view of the godhead agree with the type of theology Grudem puts forth in the quotes in the opening post? Or do you think those are problematic and inconsistent with the scriptures?

[Luke]

As a trinitarian I do not see the doctrine of trinity vrs oneness asa a salvational issue. I agree with those who have stated that the Godhead can be a hard issue to fully grasp. That being said I do hold firmly to a trinitarian belief.

[houston]

As a trinitarian I do not see the doctrine of trinity vrs oneness asa a salvational issue. I agree with those who have stated that the Godhead can be a hard issue to fully grasp. That being said I do hold firmly to a trinitarian belief.

Really? I consider most OP's to be in a cult.

[Luke]

I perfer older theologians such as Adam Clarke to many of the newer and more modren theoloians.

From Adam Clarke's Christian theology:

Part 4 THE TRINITY In Genesis i, 1, the original word Elohim, "God," is certainly the plural form of El, or Eloah, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of persons in the divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to three persons, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Christians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in deriving it from the first words of divine revelation. An eminent Jewish rabbin, Simeon ben Joachi, has these remarkable words: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet, notwithstanding, they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." In the ever blessed Trinity, from the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy.

In God there are found three persons, not separately existing, but in one infinite unity; who are termed Father, Son, and Spirit; or GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON, and GOD the HOLY GHOST, all existing in the one infinite and eternal GODHEAD; neither being before or after the other, none being greater or less than the other. These three divine persons are frequently termed among Christians THE TRINITY.

Eph. ii, 18: "For through him," Christ Jesus, "we both," Jews and Gentiles, "have access by one Spirit," through the influence of the Holy Ghost, "unto the Father," God Almighty. This text is a plain proof of the holy Trinity. Jews and Gentiles are to be presented to God the Father; and the Spirit of God works in their hearts, and prepares them for this presentation: and Jesus Christ himself introduces them. No one can have access to God but by Jesus Christ, and he introduces none but such as receive his Holy Spirit.

Even the doctrine of the eternal Trinity in unity may be collected from numberless appearances in nature. A consideration of the herb trefoil is said to have been the means of fully convincing the learned Erasmus of the truth of the assertion, "These three are one;" and yet three distinct. He saw the same root, the same fibers, the same pulpy substance, the same membranous covering, the same color, the same taste, the same smell, in every part; and yet the three leaves distinct; but each and all a continuation of the stem, and proceeding from the same root. Such a fact as this may at least illustrate the doctrine. An intelligent shepherd, whom he met upon the mountains, is said to have exhibited the herb and the illustration, while discoursing on certain difficulties in the Christian faith. When a child I heard a learned man relate this fact.

I much perfer this explanation.

[houston]

I appreciate your response, but I can't really see why you prefer trinitarianism over oneness except that you feel it makes a better distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. I'm not trying to change you mind as to me this is not a salvation issue (hear all the OPs gasp). However I'm just trying to understand why someone who has been familiar with oneness would switch to trinitarinism, especially in reference to the Grudem quotes. So I'll ask you a more direct question. Does your current view of the godhead agree with the type of theology Grudem puts forth in the quotes in the opening post? Or do you think those are problematic and inconsistent with the scriptures?
Trinitarianism makes THE distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Sp... Holy Ghost. :happydance I was never ok with pastors, teachers, and preachers shying away from biblical terminology. Red flags were everywhere, but I hung around the OP camp for well over a decade. :girlytantrum

I have no issue with the Grudem quotes as they stand. When/if I reach that point in Systematic Theology I'll have a better idea of the context.

(This isn't "he left OP and is spiteful." Many things didn't agree with me from the get-go.)

[Originalist]

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.

If Houston is with others and says, "Let US go eat lunch", that does not mean the others are also Houston. It is the same at creation. God said to someone who was other than God, "Let Us".

[Originalist]

I perfer older theologians such as Adam Clarke to many of the newer and more modren theoloians.

From Adam Clarke's Christian theology:

Part 4 THE TRINITY In Genesis i, 1, the original word Elohim, "God," is certainly the plural form of El, or Eloah, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of persons in the divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to three persons, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Christians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in deriving it from the first words of divine revelation. An eminent Jewish rabbin, Simeon ben Joachi, has these remarkable words: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet, notwithstanding, they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." In the ever blessed Trinity, from the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy.

In God there are found three persons, not separately existing, but in one infinite unity; who are termed Father, Son, and Spirit; or GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON, and GOD the HOLY GHOST, all existing in the one infinite and eternal GODHEAD; neither being before or after the other, none being greater or less than the other. These three divine persons are frequently termed among Christians THE TRINITY.

Eph. ii, 18: "For through him," Christ Jesus, "we both," Jews and Gentiles, "have access by one Spirit," through the influence of the Holy Ghost, "unto the Father," God Almighty. This text is a plain proof of the holy Trinity. Jews and Gentiles are to be presented to God the Father; and the Spirit of God works in their hearts, and prepares them for this presentation: and Jesus Christ himself introduces them. No one can have access to God but by Jesus Christ, and he introduces none but such as receive his Holy Spirit.

Even the doctrine of the eternal Trinity in unity may be collected from numberless appearances in nature. A consideration of the herb trefoil is said to have been the means of fully convincing the learned Erasmus of the truth of the assertion, "These three are one;" and yet three distinct. He saw the same root, the same fibers, the same pulpy substance, the same membranous covering, the same color, the same taste, the same smell, in every part; and yet the three leaves distinct; but each and all a continuation of the stem, and proceeding from the same root. Such a fact as this may at least illustrate the doctrine. An intelligent shepherd, whom he met upon the mountains, is said to have exhibited the herb and the illustration, while discoursing on certain difficulties in the Christian faith. When a child I heard a learned man relate this fact.

I much perfer this explanation.

So the one God who is three persons said, "Let US...."

Who was the one God talking to? He was obviously talking to someone who was not God.

[Originalist]

As a trinitarian I do not see the doctrine of trinity vrs oneness asa a salvational issue. I agree with those who have stated that the Godhead can be a hard issue to fully grasp. That being said I do hold firmly to a trinitarian belief.

Respectfully, you hold to A Trinitarian belief. There is no such thing as THE Trinitarian belief because the different versions of this doctrine are as the sands of the seas.

[Luke]

Really? I consider most OP's to be in a cult.

I have heard some people say that and even the Bible College that I graduated from took that position. I cannot go that far on a doctrine that I can see being confusing to people. I would disagree with oneness doctrine in some other areas though.

[Luke]

Respectfully, you hold to A Trinitarian belief. There is no such thing as THE Trinitarian belief because the different versions of this doctrine are as the sands of the seas.

I hold to the more classical trinitarian doctrine. I am sure there are disagreements as to the details of trinitarianism just as there is to the details of oneness doctrine. All that one has to do is look at the different views promoted here as to the meaning of oneness and it becomes clear that there are differences of opinion in the oneness camp as well.

[Jay]

I have stated that the Trinitarian argument would look like this if actually laid out in a mathematical formula: Father=Son=Spirit=God.

Now if three things are directly equal so that A=B, B=C, C=D, then logically A=D and so on. The very statement that the three 'co-equal persons' of the trinitarian doctrine the collapses under its own weight. However, we are told that while the Father is equal with the Son, and the Son is equal with the Spirit, and the Father is equal with the Spirit, these do not make them one! This is an impossibly incoherent contradiction of basic facts.

In conclusion, their argument would resemble this (if I might be permitted to use this as an example): Jay=Saint, Jay=Son, Jay=Employee, but these are not all the same Jay, you have three separate, distinct, co-equal people named Jay! :D

[votivesoul]

I have stated that the Trinitarian argument would look like this if actually laid out in a mathematical formula: Father=Son=Spirit=God.

Now if three things are directly equal so that A=B, B=C, C=D, then logically A=D and so on. The very statement that the three 'co-equal persons' of the trinitarian doctrine the collapses under its own weight. However, we are told that while the Father is equal with the Son, and the Son is equal with the Spirit, and the Father is equal with the Spirit, these do not make them one! This is an impossibly incoherent contradiction of basic facts.

In conclusion, their argument would resemble this (if I might be permitted to use this as an example): Jay=Saint, Jay=Son, Jay=Employee, but these are not all the same Jay, you have three separate, distinct, co-equal people named Jay! :D

I've understood the Trinitarian position to not mean F = S = HG, because for the Trinitarian, according to the very popular Scutum Fidei, it is expressly stated the Father IS NOT the Son, the Son IS NOT the Father, the Father IS NOT the Holy Ghost, and so on, as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

Rather, it is often in Oneness circles that we see people, at least in their thinking and vernacular, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal or same since they are Jesus (or rather that Jesus is all three).

So, I've felt that the Trinitarian position looks something this:

F X S X HG = God.

It's algebraic, where F = Father, and is (1), and S = Son, and is (1), and HG = Holy Ghost, and is (1), all equaling G = God, who is (1), so that, as F = 1, S = 1, and HG = 1, you have this:

1 X 1 X 1 = 1

The only problem then is in going back to the Scutum Fidei, which proves the lack of logic in the Trinitarian view. The Trinitarian view strongly says:

F ≠ S ≠ HG = God

It's easy math. If you divide 1 by 3, like so: 1/3 =.333333333333333333.

Now, multiple .333333333333333333 X 3 = .9999999999999999999.

No matter how one tries to reassemble the math, and no matter how much .9999999999999999 for all intents and purposes is mathematically considered (1), you never quite can get back to the original starting point, i.e. ONE God.

[votivesoul]

I've understood the Trinitarian position to not mean F = S = HG, because for the Trinitarian, according to the very popular Scutum Fidei, it is expressly stated the Father IS NOT the Son, the Son IS NOT the Father, the Father IS NOT the Holy Ghost, and so on, as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

Rather, it is often in Oneness circles that we see people, at least in their thinking and vernacular, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal or same since they are Jesus (or rather that Jesus is all three).

So, I've felt that the Trinitarian position looks something this:

F X S X HG = God.

It's algebraic, where F = Father, and is (1), and S = Son, and is (1), and HG = Holy Ghost, and is (1), all equaling G = God, who is (1), so that, as F = 1, S = 1, and HG = 1, you have this:

1 X 1 X 1 = 1

The only problem then is in going back to the Scutum Fidei, which proves the lack of logic in the Trinitarian view. The Trinitarian view strongly says:

F ≠ S ≠ HG = God

It's easy math. If you divide 1 by 3, like so: 1/3 =.333333333333333333.

Now, multiple .333333333333333333 X 3 = .9999999999999999999.

No matter how one tries to reassemble the math, and no matter how much .9999999999999999 for all intents and purposes is mathematically considered (1), you never quite can get back to the original starting point, i.e. ONE God.


In the Oneness world, to apply some Algebra, it looks like this:

J = FSHG, or Jesus equals Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

But, traditional Oneness teaches this:

F ≠ S, as in the Father IS NOT the Son, but then states Jesus is both F and S, even though F ≠ S.

So to clarify, they qualify it to mean (or risk losing the logic of it all) that F ≠ S as a mode of being, even though F and S are the same person, i.e. Jesus.

So Jesus ontologically only exists as One Person, God. But in His modes of existence, He operates independently as two different modes which are not the same mode, i.e. F ≠ S as modes of being, even though J = F and S according to His person, which is God.

So there is one mode, Jesus the Father, which is a separate and distinct mode from Jesus the Son (and of course, you then have Jesus the Holy Spirit, a third mode of being or activity).

But now look at the Trinitarian model: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost as separate persons. Now look back at the Oneness model: Jesus the Father, Jesus the Son, and Jesus the Holy Spirit as different modes (remember the old Sabellianist doxology: Jesus was Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in emanation/regeneration?).

So then it looks like this:

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost (persons)

Jesus the Father, Jesus the Son, Jesus the Holy Ghost (modes)

At what point do we just admit that person and mode are practically synonyms for each other and the only real difference is semantical in nature?

Triniatarians say God is one substance existing in three subsistencies.

Oneness say Jesus is one God existing in three modes.

It's practically the same thing.

[Michael The Disciple]

People try to go beyond where scripture leads. It does not sound the same to me when you keep the discussion within Biblical framework.

Like is Jesus God the Father? Trins say no. We say yes. Thats where the real battle is.

[Jay]

In the Oneness world, to apply some Algebra, it looks like this:

J = FSHG, or Jesus equals Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

But, traditional Oneness teaches this:

F ≠ S, as in the Father IS NOT the Son, but then states Jesus is both F and S, even though F ≠ S.

So to clarify, they qualify it to mean (or risk losing the logic of it all) that F ≠ S as a mode of being, even though F and S are the same person, i.e. Jesus.

So Jesus ontologically only exists as One Person, God. But in His modes of existence, He operates independently as two different modes which are not the same mode, i.e. F ≠ S as modes of being, even though J = F and S according to His person, which is God.

So there is one mode, Jesus the Father, which is a separate and distinct mode from Jesus the Son (and of course, you then have Jesus the Holy Spirit, a third mode of being or activity).

But now look at the Trinitarian model: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost as separate persons. Now look back at the Oneness model: Jesus the Father, Jesus the Son, and Jesus the Holy Spirit as different modes (remember the old Sabellianist doxology: Jesus was Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in emanation/regeneration?).

So then it looks like this:

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost (persons)

Jesus the Father, Jesus the Son, Jesus the Holy Ghost (modes)

At what point do we just admit that person and mode are practically synonyms for each other and the only real difference is semantical in nature?

Triniatarians say God is one substance existing in three subsistencies.

Oneness say Jesus is one God existing in three modes.

It's practically the same thing.


Actually, it would be incorrect theology to structure the oneness position the way you just did. God has taken on many names throughout history, but Jesus was the name He took when He came to redeem humanity from sin. To say that Jesus was then name of the Father in the Old Testament would be in error. He actually says that his name is Yaweh (Jehovah in English), and then later adds to that name according to His attribute displayed (healer, peace, banner, etc.). When it came time for Him to finish the work of atonement, He came as one of us, took the name Jesus (meaning Jehovah/Yaweh saves, staying in keeping with the prior thought), and then died.

The Father and the Son are not the same as one refers to Spirit and the other to flesh. However, as both were united in Jesus, the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit would be Jesus. For this reason Paul states, "Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh..." The oneness position entirely rejects the Trinitarian construct of an eternal, pre-existant, pre-incarnate God the Son.

[Luke]

I've understood the Trinitarian position to not mean F = S = HG, because for the Trinitarian, according to the very popular Scutum Fidei, it is expressly stated the Father IS NOT the Son, the Son IS NOT the Father, the Father IS NOT the Holy Ghost, and so on, as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

Rather, it is often in Oneness circles that we see people, at least in their thinking and vernacular, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal or same since they are Jesus (or rather that Jesus is all three).

So, I've felt that the Trinitarian position looks something this:

F X S X HG = God.

It's algebraic, where F = Father, and is (1), and S = Son, and is (1), and HG = Holy Ghost, and is (1), all equaling G = God, who is (1), so that, as F = 1, S = 1, and HG = 1, you have this:

1 X 1 X 1 = 1

The only problem then is in going back to the Scutum Fidei, which proves the lack of logic in the Trinitarian view. The Trinitarian view strongly says:

F ≠ S ≠ HG = God

It's easy math. If you divide 1 by 3, like so: 1/3 =.333333333333333333.

Now, multiple .333333333333333333 X 3 = .9999999999999999999.

No matter how one tries to reassemble the math, and no matter how much .9999999999999999 for all intents and purposes is mathematically considered (1), you never quite can get back to the original starting point, i.e. ONE God.

If you divide 1 by 3 then multiply it times three you get 1 not .9999999999 I just did it on my phone.

[Luke]

People try to go beyond where scripture leads. It does not sound the same to me when you keep the discussion within Biblical framework.

Like is Jesus God the Father? Trins say no. We say yes. Thats where the real battle is.

I agree Michael it is not the same thing and I also agree with you in that all one has to do to see the difference is ask if Jesus is the Father. However I do not think that one can then make the statement that a different God is being spoken of by each group rather it is a different view of the same God.

[Farfel]

Why are we making God into a math problem? Why are we trying to put God in a box with our limited minds? He created us, why are we trying to create Him?

[Luke]

Actually, it would be incorrect theology to structure the oneness position the way you just did. God has taken on many names throughout history, but Jesus was the name He took when He came to redeem humanity from sin. To say that Jesus was then name of the Father in the Old Testament would be in error. He actually says that his name is Yaweh (Jehovah in English), and then later adds to that name according to His attribute displayed (healer, peace, banner, etc.). When it came time for Him to finish the work of atonement, He came as one of us, took the name Jesus (meaning Jehovah/Yaweh saves, staying in keeping with the prior thought), and then died.

The Father and the Son are not the same as one refers to Spirit and the other to flesh. However, as both were united in Jesus, the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit would be Jesus. For this reason Paul states, "Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh..." The oneness position entirely rejects the Trinitarian construct of an eternal, pre-existant, pre-incarnate God the Son.
I do hold to the fact that Jesus was eternally existent with the Father as the Son before His incarnation. I get this from passages such as :
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. — John 1:1 (KJV)

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



Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: — Philippians 2:6 (KJV)
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: — Philippians 2:9 (KJV)
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. — Philippians 2:11 (KJV)

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: — Colossians 1:12 (KJV)
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: — Colossians 1:13 (KJV)
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: — Colossians 1:15 (KJV)
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: — Colossians 1:16 (KJV)
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. — Colossians 1:17 (KJV)
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; — Colossians 1:19 (KJV)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, — Hebrews 1:1 (KJV)
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; — Hebrews 1:2 (KJV)
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? — Hebrews 1:5 (KJV)
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. — Hebrews 1:8 (KJV)

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? — Proverbs 30:4 (KJV

[Jay]

Why are we making God into a math problem? Why are we trying to put God in a box with our limited minds? He created us, why are we trying to create Him?

We are not attempting to make God a mathematical equation. This was done when the doctrine of Trinitarianism was developed in the second and third centuries. By declaring there to be three co-equal persons with one substance, and declaring that they had a single Deity, the mathematics of the situation were already laid into place. Due to the logical nature that God gave man, it is not a stretch to analyze a doctrine that uses a philisophical formula via philosophical formulae.

[Michael The Disciple]

Luke

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? — Hebrews 1:5 (KJV)

This is my strongest case against "eternal Son" doctrine. The Son was begotten. Either Oneness is right that this refers to the incarnation, or Arians are right that the Son was the first begotten separate person from God before time.

Trinitarians rule themselves out of the picture on this verse.

[obriencp]

This is my strongest case against "eternal Son" doctrine. The Son was begotten. Either Oneness is right that this refers to the incarnation, or Arians are right that the Son was the first begotten separate person from God before time.

Trinitarians rule themselves out of the picture on this verse.

I understand what you mean, but the term "eternal" is a sticky one. If he has no end, is he eternal? From here out, i'd say yes.

However, I think Jesus, or the son, has a beginning. When/where that beginning is, is my dilemna. Does the fact he has a beginning exclude him from being eternal?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I understand what you mean, but the term "eternal" is a sticky one. If he has no end, is he eternal? From here out, i'd say yes.

However, I think Jesus, or the son, has a beginning. When/where that beginning is, is my dilemna. Does the fact he has a beginning exclude him from being eternal?

Paul said the world was created by Jesus.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The Word was in the begining with the Creator.

Does it ever strike anyone else curious that the worlds were spoken into existence and Jesus Christ, Son of the Living GOD is the WORD of GOD?

[Luke]

This is my strongest case against "eternal Son" doctrine. The Son was begotten. Either Oneness is right that this refers to the incarnation, or Arians are right that the Son was the first begotten separate person from God before time.

Trinitarians rule themselves out of the picture on this verse.

So in light of vrs 8 are you saying that God had a beginning point?

Also how can one deny the eternalness of Jesus as the Son in light of this passage:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Notice the only thing before His existence is nothing since He is before all things.

He had to create Himself since all things were created by Him.

Also the Father is pleased to in Himself all fullness dewells.

All of these things must be true if Jesus has not always existed as the Son.

[Michael The Disciple]

So in light of vrs 8 are you saying that God had a beginning point?

Also how can one deny the eternalness of Jesus as the Son in light of this passage:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Notice the only thing before His existence is nothing since He is before all things.

He had to create Himself since all things were created by Him.

Also the Father is pleased to in Himself all fullness dewells.

All of these things must be true if Jesus has not always existed as the Son.

God had no beginning point but his IMAGE DID. Before creation God had no image because there was no one to have seen him. I believe God did create himself in that sense. He formed the image (Logos) to be everything he was except VISIBLY.

Then when he created other beings they would be able to see him. The word, form, or image is how the Son pre existed. At the incarnation the word became flesh. The word became the Son.

I realize this gets complicated but no more complicated than the belief that a begotten son is actually an eternal son.

[Luke]

But if the Son created all things ( which the passage clearly says in no uncertain terms ) how could He have been created? Also if the Son is before all things by what or who was He created? The only way to answer theses question is to say the Son has eternally existed with the Father.

[Michael The Disciple]

But if the Son created all things ( which the passage clearly says in no uncertain terms ) how could He have been created? Also if the Son is before all things by what or who was He created? The only way to answer theses question is to say the Son has eternally existed with the Father.

Well Arians teach he was created before time to be the Creator. That makes more sense to me than teaching there is an eternal son. If the son is eternal HOW is he a son? A son HAS a beginning and thats what verse 5 is saying.

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? — Hebrews 1:5 (KJV)

The Father says I will be to him a Father. He will be to me a son.

That indicates this relationship did not exist before this verse 5.

My belief is when he says the Son created all things then he details who the Son who made all things WAS in the beginning.

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Heb. 1:2-3

When the Son made the worlds he was existing as the brightness of his glory and the express image of HIS PERSON.

In other words the image of the invisible God. Then at the incarnation that image was made flesh fulfilling Heb. 1:5

For a detailed explanation see my video in post 5 of this thread.

[Luke]

You are avoiding the fact the Son cannot have had a beginning point since He was before all things. Also if He had a beginning point what caused Him to come into existence? Thirdly He could not have been created if He created all things.

[Michael The Disciple]

You are avoiding the fact the Son cannot have had a beginning point since He was before all things. Also if He had a beginning point what caused Him to come into existence? Thirdly He could not have been created if He created all things.

But you are avoiding the fact that A SON by definition is begotten of a Father and is NOT ETERNAL. That is my point.

Is Jesus the Eternal Father AND The Eternal Son?

We know Isaiah 9:6 calls him Eternal Father. So if there would be a verse to call him Eternal Son he would then be both rite?

My thinking is he is the Eternal Father and the begotten Son.

Hey that sounds like Isaiah 9:6 dont it?

[Luke]

But you are avoiding the fact that A SON by definition is begotten of a Father and is NOT ETERNAL. That is my point.

Is Jesus the Eternal Father AND The Eternal Son?

We know Isaiah 9:6 calls him Eternal Father. So if there would be a verse to call him Eternal Son he would then be both rite?

My thinking is he is the Eternal Father and the begotten Son.

Hey that sounds like Isaiah 9:6 dont it?

I understand your point but at the same time I must point out that your point assumes that Jesus was a Son in a human sense of the word. In which case yes a son in that sense must have a father and must be begotten. However that the case of Jesus is far from human can be seen by looking at His mother. By your reasoning Mary could not have been Jesus mother since for a woman to become a mother she cannot be a current virgin.

As to the verse you pointed out in Isa 9 I would point out the hermeneutic rule we learned in college:
"Never take one obscure verse to overturn what many clear passages say."

[Michael The Disciple]

Isaiah 9:6 is hardly obscure! Speaking of "obscure" are you aware there is exactly 0 verses that say "Eternal Son"? Now thats obscure!

[Luke]

Very true but Jesus is called eternal (or at the very least the first and the last and as being before all things) and the Son. It makes sense to me. It is obscure in that it is a single verse used to discount many others. I can see how those who believe in the oneness doctrine of the Godhead can interpret it out of some passages however I cannot see it in the overall Bible supported. As I have stated before to me it is not a salvational issue but it is one I am convinced about even after having looked at it with as open a mind as possible.

[Jason B]

Isaiah 9:6 is hardly obscure! Speaking of "obscure" are you aware there is exactly 0 verses that say "Eternal Son"? Now thats obscure!

Exactly. Isaiah 9:6 isn't obscure. I find it interesting that in the same book that I quoted in the opening post of this thread, in the section "The Person of Christ" "B. The Deity of Christ" pg. 237, Grudem quotes Isaiah 9:6 but strangely doesn't quote the entire verse. (I think we know why). Here is the quote:

"One Old Testament example of the name God applied to Christ is in a familiar Messianic passage: "For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God.....'" (Isa. 9:6)
[End quote]

Hmmm

[Jason B]

However to Grudems credit (and thus is why I argue adamantly that trinitarians are fellow believers and should be treated as such, he writes on page 237:

"Now there are many instances in the New Testament where "Lord" is used of Christ in what can only be understood as this strong Old Testament sense, "the Lord" who is Yahweh or God himself."
[End quote]

Grudem identifies Jesus Christ as Yahweh. To which every oneness believer would shout "amen".

[Michael The Disciple]

Exactly. Isaiah 9:6 isn't obscure. I find it interesting that in the same book that I quoted in the opening post of this thread, in the section "The Person of Christ" "B. The Deity of Christ" pg. 237, Grudem quotes Isaiah 9:6 but strangely doesn't quote the entire verse. (I think we know why). Here is the quote:

"One Old Testament example of the name God applied to Christ is in a familiar Messianic passage: "For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God.....'" (Isa. 9:6)
[End quote]



Hmmm

We have seen that verse distorted on many occasions. Those that do so are making a statement.

"If anyone sees that the Christ is THE ETERNAL FATHER it will destroy this Trinity we have fought so hard for"!

How true! Men would realize Christ is BOTH.....Father and Son.

[Michael The Disciple]

However to Grudems credit (and thus is why I argue adamantly that trinitarians are fellow believers and should be treated as such, he writes on page 237:

"Now there are many instances in the New Testament where "Lord" is used of Christ in what can only be understood as this strong Old Testament sense, "the Lord" who is Yahweh or God himself."
[End quote]

Grudem identifies Jesus Christ as Yahweh. To which every oneness believer would shout "amen".

I say amen to that statement. But Trins believe Yeshua is ANOTHER PERSON OF YHWH, thus destroying the shema.

[Luke]

Isa 9 is probably the only passage that has ever made me wonder but in light of other passages I can't throw the doctrine of the trinity out.

[Bowas]

Isa 9 is probably the only passage that has ever made me wonder but in light of other passages I can't throw the doctrine of the trinity out.

I admire your honesty.

[Michael The Disciple]

I thought I was a Trinity believer until I heard the Trinity defined. 3 co equal, co eternal persons, each one being God in his own right.

Then I knew for sure I did not believe in it. At that point I wasnt sure what TO believe but everything in me rejected such a doctrine.

[Luke]

I hold strongly to Athanaisn creed definition of the trinity:

one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

[Luke]

I thought I was a Trinity believer until I heard the Trinity defined. 3 co equal, co eternal persons, each one being God in his own right.

Then I knew for sure I did not believe in it. At that point I wasnt sure what TO believe but everything in me rejected such a doctrine.

How would you as a oneness believer deal with this verse?

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. — Luke 12:10 (KJV)

If oneness doctrine is correct why does it make a difference if you blasphemy Jesus or the Holy Ghost since they are both one and the same? Would not a person blaspheming Jesus also be blaspheming the Holy Ghost at the same time?

[Michael The Disciple]

How would you as a oneness believer deal with this verse?

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. — Luke 12:10 (KJV)

If oneness doctrine is correct why does it make a difference if you blasphemy Jesus or the Holy Ghost since they are both one and the same? Would not a person blaspheming Jesus also be blaspheming the Holy Ghost at the same time?

It is easy to deal with Luke.

Here is what Yeshua referred to:

Levi 24:10-16

10And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. 12And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.

13And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

The Holy Spirit is the Father of Yeshua. His name is YHWH. Saul cursed Yeshua and blasphemed his name because he thought he was a mere man, an imposter. But in doing so his intention was not to blaspheme YHWH. He thought he was serving YHWH.

To speak evil of Yeshua as a man is forgivable. To speak evil of YHWH (the Holy Spirit) is not.

[Michael The Disciple]

I hold strongly to Athanaisn creed definition of the trinity:

one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

I hold firmly to this creed.

6For 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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Yeshua is:

a. Wonderful Counselor
b. Mighty God
c. Eternal Father
d. Prince Of Peace

If he is not he does not meet the qualifications to be the Messiah.

The spirit of anti christ will deny this.

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

How does believing the doctrine of Christ give us both the Father and the Son?

Read Isaiah 9:6 SLOWLY...........

Does it say Messiah is a SON? Does it say the Son shall be called EVERLASTING FATHER?

WHY YES IT DOES! If you accept Yeshua as THE MESSIAH of Isaiah's prophecy you are accepting him AS BOTH.

If he is not the EVERLASTING FATHER he does not fulfill the prophecy!

Now do YOU believe Yeshua is the Son and the Father?

[Praxeas]

Trinitarianism makes THE distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Sp... Holy Ghost. :happydance
So does Oneness. The issue is about what that distinction is.

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ugstsymposium.htm

[Praxeas]

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.
Who was speaking? The bible says God

"Let us" is a third person plural pronoun..WHO was God speaking to? God was speaking to someone other than Himself

That's the grammar. Even Trinitarian scholars admit that (scholars not Apologists)

Net Bible Notes

47 sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of "deliberation" here, but his proposed examples of this use (2Sa_24:14; Isa_6:8) do not actually support his theory.

In 2Sa_24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa_6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1Ki_22:19-22; Job_1:6-12; Job_2:1-6; Isa_6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God's messengers, or angels. In Gen_3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as "gods/divine beings." See the note on the word "evil" in Gen_3:5.)

If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job_38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (Gen_1:27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine "image" in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

[Praxeas]

Houston what is your opinion of Grudems statements?

Do you think God exists as "three distinct separate individual persons". And should we use the plural "they, their, them" when speaking about God? And if there are three separate individuals who are all God, how then can a trinitarian assert they believe in one God?*
Historical, Orthodox Trinitarianism avoids speaking or describing the Persons as Separate Individual.

They believe the three are One being, one in number

[Praxeas]

How would you as a oneness believer deal with this verse?

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. — Luke 12:10 (KJV)

If oneness doctrine is correct why does it make a difference if you blasphemy Jesus or the Holy Ghost since they are both one and the same? Would not a person blaspheming Jesus also be blaspheming the Holy Ghost at the same time?
The Trinitarian has to have the same answers since all three are equally God

But they are not "One and the same", they are distinct and in this case we should note it says "Son of man".

He is not the Eternal Son of man. That term ties into his being human.

That was the only way the Son of man could be blasphemed

[Praxeas]

You are avoiding the fact the Son cannot have had a beginning point since He was before all things. Also if He had a beginning point what caused Him to come into existence? Thirdly He could not have been created if He created all things.
The Son personally did not have a beginning point. The Son is Personally God, the Creator. But God the Creator did not personally Eternally exist AS the Son.

So WHO the Son is (God) has no beginning.

WHAT the Son is, as far as His Divine nature, has no beginning

WHAT the Son is, as far as His Human nature and the union of the Divine and Human nature, did have a beginnng

[Luke]

It is easy to deal with Luke.

Here is what Yeshua referred to:

Levi 24:10-16

10And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. 12And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.

13And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

The Holy Spirit is the Father of Yeshua. His name is YHWH. Saul cursed Yeshua and blasphemed his name because he thought he was a mere man, an imposter. But in doing so his intention was not to blaspheme YHWH. He thought he was serving YHWH.

To speak evil of Yeshua as a man is forgivable. To speak evil of YHWH (the Holy Spirit) is not.

If you can speak evil of one and not at the same time be speaking evil of the other them they are two not one. If they are one then to speak evil of the one is to speak evil of the other since they are one and the same.

[Jason B]

Historical, Orthodox Trinitarianism avoids speaking or describing the Persons as Separate Individual.

They believe the three are One being, one in number

I know that trinitarians are careful to emphasize they believe in DISTINCT persons not SEPARATE persons, typically especially when in discussion/debate with oneness people.

HOWEVER at least in my experience they continually use the word SEPARATE or even different persons in conversation, sermons, and books when they are not writing/speaking apologetically. (Times when their guard is down).

[Bowas]

The following is not scripture, however they are excerpts from solidly Trinitarians that, in spite of these admissions, continue to believe in the trinity.
We know, the trinity was introduced or incorporated into Christianity by the Catholics. This is not, in any way an anti-catholic post, but merely historical conclusions by the originator of the trinity in Christianity as they are the authority on this teaching.
The following are excerpts from The New Catholic Encyclopedia and I encourage you to confirm or get yourself a copy of the complete writings, as I cannot post everything. I will not post their reasons to continue and insist on this doctrine, only the points they bring out as to what should be questionable reasons for acceptance of the trinity.
I will refrain from adding any personal comments CAPITALIZATION for emphasis, and just post it as written.
(nothing is intended to be taken out of context, so please research personally for clarification on any point in question)

Nothing following, came from Oneness believers, but all from Trintarians.

Trinity, Holy
…when one does speak of an unqualified trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma “one God in three persons” became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.

…the formula itself does not reflect the immediate conciseness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development.

…Gradual Evolution of the 4th Century Dogma…

…But a Trinitarian solution was still in the future…

…Tertullian…is clear that he thinks of the three as three individuals…

…The Roman church, originally cool toward the stress of otherness and plurality, had come to incorporate Tertullian’s main insights.

…the slowly emerging Trinitarian dogma…

…To not a few even among the fiercest anti-Arians, introduction into the confession of faith of a non-Biblical device, albeit to articulate a Biblical inescapable conclusion, was for a long time unacceptable.

…The tome of Constantinople I expressed in sufficiently clear and simple language what would forever-after stand as the Trinitarian dogma.

…The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.

…New Testament exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic and conciliar development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the New Testament writers.

…the revealed truth (trinity), while remaining the same ultimate truth and mystery, had nevertheless undergone transformation, and this, not merely in verbal or literary expression, but in concept and understanding.

…it is clear on one side that the dogma of the trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries’ reflection and debate,

…The object is not, certainly should not be, to demonstrate that Matthew or Paul or John is “saying” the Trinitarian dogma. The object is rather to demonstrate that from the writer does say, the 4th-century dogma is a uniquely consistent conclusion…

…Presupposes…

…A major problem, possibly THE major problem, in contemporary Trinitarian theology, however lies in presupposition.

…Further development…which further development was going to settle.

…gradually emerging Trinitarian dogma…

…Trinitarian Problem as Posed Today…

The Pastoral question…
But how does one preach the trinity?…If “the trinity” here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it all-not, it should be added, because the audience is insufficiently prepared, but because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not it’s theological elaborations.

…if “the trinity” means, however, as more often it will, Trinitarian doctrine, particularly the fundamental dogma, “one God in three persons,” what should be said in reply has not always been too clear. The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God.

…Depsite the unmistakably Trinitarian or triadic consciousness of the public credo and liturgical worship of the church, as reflected, for instance, in a source so ready-to-hand as the Romans Missal, individuals continue to pray to, and think of, a monotheistic God.

…the doctrine of the Holy trinity is not taught in the Old Testament. In the New Testament…Gospels evidence of the trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula Matt 28:19.

…Devotion to the trinity asit is known today seems to have begun in monasteries at Aniane and Tours, in the 8th century.

There is so much more, but you can aquire the entire study and read it all for yourself.
Simply put, It is a dogma that evolved to what it is today and not taught explicitly by the original church, and is nowhere taught in the Old Testament.

[Bowas]

In a popular Christian magazine, “Christianity Today.” which is a publication that is mainstream and Trintarian.

The issue they published Sept. 10, 1990 had an article I think certain excerpts are enlightening.

I will only post certain points, but I encourage you to do your own research to see for yourself.

The Title of the article is:

“THE DOCTRINE DOCTOR”
Jaroslav Pelikan has written a history of the Christian tradition on a scale no one else has attempted in the twentieth century.

…he is, perhaps the foremost living student of church history.

…many think he is the best there is.

…”For those who believe that you don’t need tradition because you have the Bible,” he reflects, “the Christian Tradition has sought to say, ‘You are not entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this out for you.’ To circumvent Saint Athanasius on the assumption that if you put me alone in a room with the New Testament, I will come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, is naïve.”

(end of quotes)

So, according to the “foremost living student of church history,” without “tradition” and what “has been worked out for you,” without which, one could not, with just the New Testament in hand, come up with the doctrine of the trinity, he calls that notion, “naïve.”

Conclusion: According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia, the doctrine of the trinity is not found in the Old Testament and according to the “Doctrine Doctor” the doctrine of the trinity is not found in the New Testament.

[Praxeas]

I know that trinitarians are careful to emphasize they believe in DISTINCT persons not SEPARATE persons, typically especially when in discussion/debate with oneness people.

HOWEVER at least in my experience they continually use the word SEPARATE or even different persons in conversation, sermons, and books when they are not writing/speaking apologetically. (Times when their guard is down).
That's why I made the distinction about Historical Orthodox Trinitarianism vs the modern Neo Trinitarianism

[jfrog]

I've understood the Trinitarian position to not mean F = S = HG, because for the Trinitarian, according to the very popular Scutum Fidei, it is expressly stated the Father IS NOT the Son, the Son IS NOT the Father, the Father IS NOT the Holy Ghost, and so on, as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

Rather, it is often in Oneness circles that we see people, at least in their thinking and vernacular, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal or same since they are Jesus (or rather that Jesus is all three).

So, I've felt that the Trinitarian position looks something this:

F X S X HG = God.

It's algebraic, where F = Father, and is (1), and S = Son, and is (1), and HG = Holy Ghost, and is (1), all equaling G = God, who is (1), so that, as F = 1, S = 1, and HG = 1, you have this:

1 X 1 X 1 = 1

The only problem then is in going back to the Scutum Fidei, which proves the lack of logic in the Trinitarian view. The Trinitarian view strongly says:

F ≠ S ≠ HG = God

It's easy math. If you divide 1 by 3, like so: 1/3 =.333333333333333333.

Now, multiple .333333333333333333 X 3 = .9999999999999999999.

No matter how one tries to reassemble the math, and no matter how much .9999999999999999 for all intents and purposes is mathematically considered (1), you never quite can get back to the original starting point, i.e. ONE God.

That's some butchered math at the end. 1/3 does not equal .333333333333

Instead .333333333333 is just a close approximation to what 1/3 equals.

[obriencp]

LOL... you have a point. 1/3 x 3 does equal 1.

[votivesoul]

That's some butchered math at the end. 1/3 does not equal .333333333333

Instead .333333333333 is just a close approximation to what 1/3 equals.

Take out a calculator and do it yourself. I am not meaning fractions, because yes, in fractions, 1/3 X 3 (i.e. 3/1) does = 1. I am using the decimal system.

1 divided by 3 = .3333333333333333.

.33333333333333 X 3 = .999999999999999

[Luke]

Just did it again it equals 1.

[votivesoul]

Then your calculators are set to round up, since in mathematics, .999999999999 is "essentially 1". But 1 cannot be divided by any number without coming to a fraction/decimal, except by itself or zero (+ or -). In this it is like a prime number, except 1 is not considered prime.

1 divided by 3 = .33 (continuing)

.33 X 3 = .99 (continuing).

Set it up on paper and do it long division and multiplication style.

Mind you the point is not to get bogged down with the math of the argument. The point is to talk about the unity or tri-unity of God. A mathematical approach is just one way of looking at things. It's not the only, or even the best. I brought it up in response to someone else's post.

None of us need to keep on about it. There is much more to the "madness" as Jason called it, than whether or not .3333333333333 X 3 = .999999999999 or simply 1.

[jfrog]

Take out a calculator and do it yourself. I am not meaning fractions, because yes, in fractions, 1/3 X 3 (i.e. 3/1) does = 1. I am using the decimal system.

1 divided by 3 = .3333333333333333.

.33333333333333 X 3 = .999999999999999

What if I was to tell you that not every number can be accurately represented as a decimal?

1/3 is a number that has no exact decimal representation.
pi is another number that has no exact decimal representation.
Euler's Number is also another number that has no exact decimal representation.

The fact is:
1/3 does not equal .33333333333333333333333333333333
The fact is:
.3333333333333333333 is a close approximation to the actual value of 1/3

Any points made based on the premise that 1/3 equals .3333333333333333333333333 will be invalid by default since you are using an invalid premise. Well let me rephrase that, the point could still stand but you're going to have to find a new analogy and illustration.