One Person - Two Wills?

[MarkBelosa]

Are the following statements accurate and consistent with Oneness theology?

The Father is a person (has personality, emotion, will).
The Son is also person but he has a dual nature. The fullness of the Spirit of God (The Father) dwells in that person. That person (Son) has the mind and heart of God. He knows the will of God. Yet he is also fully human. When Jesus was conceived, the Father decided that He would become one with that person in Mary's womb. The Father was never separated from Jesus except during the time of His death until His resurrection.

During His earthly life, the Son could think and feel like a normal human being but since he didn't have a sinful nature, He did not have a tendency to sin. Technically, he could feel the pull of temptation but he never yielded to it. He had a human will as well as a divine will. Yet he was and is one person.

Can we separate or dissociate "will" from "person"?
Does oneness theology say that there are two wills in the person of Jesus Christ but only one of those two wills is divine?

[kevin]

It was against the very nature of God to sin. Think about how strongly you feel about something. Would you ever change it? Could you? The answer is no. God was manifested in the flesh and couldn't change his very core.

[MarkBelosa]

It was against the very nature of God to sin. Think about how strongly you feel about something. Would you ever change it? Could you? The answer is no. God was manifested in the flesh and couldn't change his very core.

I think that's also what I believe.

Jesus did not have a sinful nature. Instead he had a divine nature. He was tempted at all points, yet without sin. I believe this means that he faced all kinds of temptation - he was made aware of the possibility of contradicting God's will, but he didn't fall into it. His inner voice had always told him to do the will of the Father, even if it meant that his earthly body would suffer.

I believe we are on the same page. I'm just trying to check if I could put my beliefs and understanding into words that are clear enough and generally accepted among Oneness believers, especially when it comes to the use of the word "person" as it relates to the subject of the Godhead.

[Praxeas]

Are the following statements accurate and consistent with Oneness theology?

The Father is a person (has personality, emotion, will).
The Son is also person but he has a dual nature. The fullness of the Spirit of God (The Father) dwells in that person. That person (Son) has the mind and heart of God. He knows the will of God. Yet he is also fully human. When Jesus was conceived, the Father decided that He would become one with that person in Mary's womb. The Father was never separated from Jesus except during the time of His death until His resurrection.

During His earthly life, the Son could think and feel like a normal human being but since he didn't have a sinful nature, He did not have a tendency to sin. Technically, he could feel the pull of temptation but he never yielded to it. He had a human will as well as a divine will. Yet he was and is one person.

Can we separate or dissociate "will" from "person"?
Does oneness theology say that there are two wills in the person of Jesus Christ but only one of those two wills is divine?
You have two persons

Yes you can distinguish Will from Person. Will is an attribute of Nature

He has a Human nature and He has the Divine nature. He has a Human will and He has the Divine will

[MarkBelosa]

You have two persons

Yes you can distinguish Will from Person. Will is an attribute of Nature

He has a Human nature and He has the Divine nature. He has a Human will and He has the Divine will

Either I worded it differently or I have a faulty understanding. I believe that the deity of Jesus Christ is not different nor separate from the Father. In that sense, I believe that there is only one person in the Godhead. I guess I'm not clear about the word "person" and how it is used in reference to the dual nature of Christ. How can he have two wills and still be considered one person?

My understanding of person is that it is synonymous with individuality. Jesus is one individual with two natures. Jesus - as an individual would not exist without the Father. The man Christ Jesus was literally fathered by God. Jesus' oneness with the Father is not exactly the same as our oneness with Him. A sinner can still exist without the Spirit of God dwelling in him. Jesus is different. If we "separate" God's Spirit from the man Jesus, his life will cease because God is in his very essence.

"Will is an attribute of nature." I will spend some time meditating on this concept and pray for God's revelation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Esaias]

How can he have two wills and be one person?

Will is an attribute of rational natures in whatever hypostases they subsist in. If a single hypostasis has two natures it by definition and necessity must have two wills.

Jesus submitted to the will of God. This proves two wills, one human, and one divine, does it not?

MORE IMPORTANTLY does scripture directly address the dilemma? No. Therefore the dilemma or "issue" is lilely a distraction from what God wants us to be busy with, eh?

[mfblume]

Does oneness theology say that there are two wills in the person of Jesus Christ but only one of those two wills is divine?

Yes. The human will was taken upon His person at incarnation, and is not eternal.

[mfblume]

How can he have two wills and be one person?


These questions only arise when we cannot escape from the dilemma of forcing human limitations upon God. Since humans cannot be one person with two wills we automatically think God cannot.

[shazeep]

IMO, beware attempts to define the Godhead too specifically; we serve an Unknown God, and settling on any one definition--which cannot be adequate, no matter how detailed--only leads to strife and defensiveness.

As evidence I will submit that even after reading this thread--and possibly adjusting your pov as a result--no real improvement in your walk seems to manifest. While I certainly understand the attempt to arrive at a fuller understanding of Christ, and God, I have noted that these threads seem to invariably devolve into mostly pointless hair-splitting.

Iow, what they just said! :D

[Aquila]

A "person" is a living being who has a full self-conscious reality, or "self", distinctively complete with the interactive faculties reason, will, and emotion who can relate to other existent realities in an "I/you" relationship.

Anyone disagree?

[Praxeas]

Either I worded it differently or I have a faulty understanding. I believe that the deity of Jesus Christ is not different nor separate from the Father. In that sense, I believe that there is only one person in the Godhead. I guess I'm not clear about the word "person" and how it is used in reference to the dual nature of Christ. How can he have two wills and still be considered one person?

Same way you can have two arms and not be two persons...ARM is not a synonym for Person

Will is also not a synonym for person

"Will is an attribute of nature." I will spend some time meditating on this concept and pray for God's revelation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Jesus said "Not MY Will but yours (God's will) be done". IF Will is a synonym for Person then that means there are two persons. However I believe Jesus was contrasting His HUMAN Will with the Divine will.

He was not saying "Not my person but your person be done"

[Praxeas]

IMO, beware attempts to define the Godhead too specifically; we serve an Unknown God, and settling on any one definition--which cannot be adequate, no matter how detailed--only leads to strife and defensiveness.

As evidence I will submit that even after reading this thread--and possibly adjusting your pov as a result--no real improvement in your walk seems to manifest. While I certainly understand the attempt to arrive at a fuller understanding of Christ, and God, I have noted that these threads seem to invariably devolve into mostly pointless hair-splitting.

Iow, what they just said! :D
Are you an agnostic? We do NOT Serve an Unknown God.

Act 17:23 For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: 'To an unknown god.' Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Joh 14:7 If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him."
Joh 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content."
Joh 14:9 Jesus replied, "Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

[Esaias]

A "person" is a living being who has a full self-conscious reality, or "self", distinctively complete with the interactive faculties reason, will, and emotion who can relate to other existent realities in an "I/you" relationship.

Anyone disagree?

Person in theology has been defined already: an individual hypostasis of rational nature. The theological definition approximates, BUT IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH, the common conception of "person".

Regardless, the scripture says the Son is the express image of God's hypostasis, not that he is a distinct hypostasis from God.

[mfblume]

A "person" is a living being who has a full self-conscious reality, or "self", distinctively complete with the interactive faculties reason, will, and emotion who can relate to other existent realities in an "I/you" relationship.

Anyone disagree?

I do. That is not what the Greek necessarily implies. Esaias said it well.

It's like going to an english dictionary to define a word in the bible instead of narrowing it down more correctly by going to the Greek or Hebrew. The Greek or Hebrew lexicons show a better definition than the English dictionary, since some Hebrew and Greek definitions are not mirror images of the English definition and require more elaboration.

[MarkBelosa]

I do. That is not what the Greek necessarily implies. Esaias said it well.

It's like going to an english dictionary to define a word in the bible instead of narrowing it down more correctly by going to the Greek or Hebrew. The Greek or Hebrew lexicons show a better definition than the English dictionary, since some Hebrew and Greek definitions are not mirror images of the English definition and require more elaboration.


I think that was my problem. I think I get it now. I think every oneness vs trinity debate should begin with a theological definition of "person."

Thanks.

[MarkBelosa]

Same way you can have two arms and not be two persons...ARM is not a synonym for Person

Will is also not a synonym for person



Jesus said "Not MY Will but yours (God's will) be done". IF Will is a synonym for Person then that means there are two persons. However I believe Jesus was contrasting His HUMAN Will with the Divine will.

He was not saying "Not my person but your person be done"

That was helpful, Prax. Thanks!

[mfblume]

I think that was my problem. I think I get it now. I think every oneness vs trinity debate should begin with a theological definition of "person."

Thanks.

Bingo! You got it right on the money!

[Praxeas]

That was helpful, Prax. Thanks!
You're welcome :happydance

[MarkBelosa]

IMO, beware attempts to define the Godhead too specifically; we serve an Unknown God, and settling on any one definition--which cannot be adequate, no matter how detailed--only leads to strife and defensiveness.

As evidence I will submit that even after reading this thread--and possibly adjusting your pov as a result--no real improvement in your walk seems to manifest. While I certainly understand the attempt to arrive at a fuller understanding of Christ, and God, I have noted that these threads seem to invariably devolve into mostly pointless hair-splitting.

Iow, what they just said! :D

My friend,

Not sure what kind of improvement you would consider significant or real, but there is a huge blessing in "knowing" who you are praying to and worshiping. :-)

That blessing could in fact be linked to one's own salvation:

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I don't know about the others, but as a former Trinitarian, I have had a greater appreciation of the following verse since I embraced the doctrine of the oneness of God:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

See, it was not a second person in the Godhead who came down to save us from sin. It was the Father Himself!!!

[Aquila]

I do. That is not what the Greek necessarily implies. Esaias said it well.

It's like going to an english dictionary to define a word in the bible instead of narrowing it down more correctly by going to the Greek or Hebrew. The Greek or Hebrew lexicons show a better definition than the English dictionary, since some Hebrew and Greek definitions are not mirror images of the English definition and require more elaboration.

How is "person" to be defined theologically? I've found a near endless list of theological definitions.

[Sean]

1 Timothy 2:5 King James Version (KJV)

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



Boy, this looks like one person to me!(but grade school was really tough)

[Aquila]

1 Timothy 2:5 King James Version (KJV)

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



Boy, this looks like one person to me!(but grade school was really tough)

The man, Christ Jesus, is both God and mediator between God and man.

[mfblume]

How is "person" to be defined theologically? I've found a near endless list of theological definitions.

That is why you argue your point the way you do. You do not know the theological definition of the term used from the Greek. Resource the Greek.

[mfblume]

The man, Christ Jesus, is both God and mediator between God and man.

Aquila, that is wrong.

How can GOD (THEOS) be distinguished from the MAN (ANTHROPOS) and then said to be one and the same?

THE MAN is not the GOD, Aquila. It is a travesty of the language written there to say otherwise, UNLESS you are talking about His PERSON, which you claim is distinct and not one.

[mfblume]

PERSON:

Hebrews 1:3

Hebrews 1:3 Who 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;


G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasis
hoop-os'-tas-is
From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): -

translated in the KJV as: confidence, confident, person, substance.


---

THAYER:

G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasis
Thayer Definition:
1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G5259 and G2476
Citing in TDNT: 8:572, 1237

It's actually the Greek word from which SUBSTANCE is translated in Heb 11:1 speaking of faith being the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for.

So, with the thought of SUBSTANCE or FOUNDATION, the PERSON of the Father is the PERSON of the Son, since the SON CAME FROM HIM. It is the same PERSON.

What is the FOUNDATION OF THE SON if not the PERSON/FOUNDATION/SUBSTANCE of the Father?

[Aquila]

Aquila, that is wrong.

How can GOD (THEOS) be distinguished from the MAN (ANTHROPOS) and then said to be one and the same?

THE MAN is not the GOD, Aquila. It is a travesty of the language written there to say otherwise, UNLESS you are talking about His PERSON, which you claim is distinct and not one.

Ehem...

John 14:7-11
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 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?
10 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. (KJV)
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

There is a mutual indwelling. Like pouring water and wine into a bucket. The wine is in the water and the water is in the wine. They are one in relation to being, yet distinct in relation to self-conscious reality.

[mfblume]

Ehem...

John 14:7-11
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 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?
10 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. (KJV)
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

There is a mutual indwelling. Like pouring water and wine into a bucket. The wine is in the water and the water is in the wine. They are one in relation to being, yet distinct in relation to self-conscious reality.
I agree with all of that. I already said so. But there is more that is beyond that as well.

By the way, the Father was located physically in the Son, and not so the other way around. Do you agree? How could the Son be physically in the Father if the Father is not physical? When Jesus said the Father in Him did the works, he was speaking in HIS PHYSICAL being as well, just as the Spirit is actually in our physical beings.

[Aquila]

PERSON:

Hebrews 1:3

Hebrews 1:3 Who 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;


G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasis
hoop-os'-tas-is
From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): -

translated in the KJV as: confidence, confident, person, substance.


---

THAYER:

G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasis
Thayer Definition:
1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G5259 and G2476
Citing in TDNT: 8:572, 1237

It's actually the Greek word from which SUBSTANCE is translated in Heb 11:1 speaking of faith being the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for.

So, with the thought of SUBSTANCE or FOUNDATION, the PERSON of the Father is the PERSON of the Son, since the SON CAME FROM HIM. It is the same PERSON.

What is the FOUNDATION OF THE SON if not the PERSON/FOUNDATION/SUBSTANCE of the Father?

The word "person" isn't entirely accurate in this text. It should be "substance".

It's my understanding that there is "substance" to any existing thing. The essence of that substance is expressed as its nature. Expressed through a given things nature are its attributes (such as person/personhood/personality) in this conversation. A rock is of a different substance than a man. The essence of that substance is expressed in the very nature of the rock. A rock isn't a "person" as it doesn't have a "personhood" or "personality".

If "substance" equals "person" then ontologically speaking... rocks are people too. lol

In fact, any existent thing or "substance" could be classified as a "person".

[Aquila]

I agree with all of that. I already said so. But there is more that is beyond that as well.

By the way, the Father was located physically in the Son, and not so the other way around. Do you agree? How could the Son be physically in the Father if the Father is not physical? When Jesus said the Father in Him did the works, he was speaking in HIS PHYSICAL being as well, just as the Spirit is actually in our physical beings.

No I disagree. Because Jesus said, "I am in the Father". I believe that this is speaking of the very essence of spirit. The human spirit of Jesus and the divine Spirit of the Father are in inseparable union. They are... one Spirit. Thus, the Spirit can be called the "Spirit of God"... or... "the Spirit of Christ".

We need to graduate the definition of the word "in". I'm not speaking of "in" as one might sit "in" a vehicle. I'm talking about "in" as one might be grafted in... fused, bonded to or with. I've often described it as pouring water and wine into a bucket. They become one. The water is in the wine and the wine is in the water.

[mfblume]

No I disagree. Because Jesus said, "I am in the Father". I believe that this is speaking of the very essence of spirit. The human spirit of Jesus and the divine Spirit of the Father are in inseparable union. They are... one Spirit. Thus, the Spirit can be called the "Spirit of God"... or... "the Spirit of Christ".

We need to graduate the definition of the word "in". I'm not speaking of "in" as one might sit "in" a vehicle. I'm talking about "in" as one might be grafted in... fused, bonded to or with. I've often described it as pouring water and wine into a bucket. They become one. The water is in the wine and the wine is in the water.

Trinitarians disagree, too. ;)

[mfblume]

If Jesus meant the Father in Him did the works in the sense that they were in union and not that the Father was located physically in Jesus, then why could not Jesus say what the Father did was because of what the SON IN HIM caused Him to do?

[Aquila]

Also, I'd like to mention that the man Jesus Christ is the express "image" of the Father's own "person". This is like a stamp or reflection bearing an image of it's originator. It is indeed distinct from it's originator. Jesus is the express image of God's own person... a reflection of God's person in full humanity.

[Aquila]

If Jesus meant the Father in Him did the works in the sense that they were in union and not that the Father was located physically in Jesus, then why could not Jesus say what the Father did was because of what the SON IN HIM caused Him to do?

Wow. I'm dumbfounded. lol

Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"... and you deny it. The Father permeates all that the Son is. Why not just believe it instead of calling Jesus a liar and claiming that the Son doesn't subsist within the Father?

There is a spiritual union. A spiritual coinherence.

[mfblume]

Wow. I'm dumbfounded. lol

Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"... and you deny it.

No, that is not what I said. I already said more than once that I agree with you in unity of purpose and will, etc. How many times do I have to say that? But I said there is also more to than that. Do you forget all we've said after two or three posts?



The Father permeates all that the Son is. Why not just believe it instead of calling Jesus a liar and claiming that the Son doesn't subsist within the Father?

There is a spiritual union. A spiritual coinherence.

Calling Jesus a liar? Brother, you're crossing the line with that nonsense.

YOU said the Son indwells the Father as much as the Father indwells the Son. And you said that is not physical. So, if that is the case, then the Son permeates all that the Father is as well. You said coinherence.

[mfblume]

Also, I'd like to mention that the man Jesus Christ is the express "image" of the Father's own "person". This is like a stamp or reflection bearing an image of it's originator. It is indeed distinct from it's originator. Jesus is the express image of God's own person... a reflection of God's person in full humanity.

So, why don't you leave it at that? That's the only time PERSON is used to describe the Godhead. But you take it further than that and add to the word saying the express image of the Father's person is a person in and of itself, as well.

[Aquila]

So, why don't you leave it at that? That's the only time PERSON is used to describe the Godhead. But you take it further than that and add to the word saying the express image of the Father's person is a person in and of itself, as well.

The express image of God's own person is clearly the image of His person... not actually His person. As it relates to this subject, the human being, the man Jesus, is the express image of the Father's person. Not the Father Himself (except in the sense of their union). That's why He can pray to the Father yet also perfectly reflect the Father.

[Aquila]

Rev. Blume... here's a diagram I've made to illustrate my understanding...

Through this "oneness" (a real and actual spiritual union of being)... via the incarnation God is also a man. And this man is also God.

[Praxeas]

The word "person" isn't entirely accurate in this text. It should be "substance".

It's my understanding that there is "substance" to any existing thing. The essence of that substance is expressed as its nature. Expressed through a given things nature are its attributes (such as person/personhood/personality) in this conversation. A rock is of a different substance than a man. The essence of that substance is expressed in the very nature of the rock. A rock isn't a "person" as it doesn't have a "personhood" or "personality".

If "substance" equals "person" then ontologically speaking... rocks are people too. lol

In fact, any existent thing or "substance" could be classified as a "person".
the word Person, from Persona, meant "The mask of an actor" back when the Creed was being formulated so the chose Hypostasis

the reason why..."substance" does not necessarily mean "stuff" like a rock. It means SUB (under) stance..etymologically it meant "that which lies under

So a Person/Hypostasis was that which lies under the outward nature. That which animates the human or Divine natures

[mfblume]

The express image of God's own person is clearly the image of His person... not actually His person. As it relates to this subject, the human being, the man Jesus, is the express image of the Father's person. Not the Father Himself (except in the sense of their union). That's why He can pray to the Father yet also perfectly reflect the Father.

I think you ave your terms confused. You mean to say that the express image of the Father which is the Son is not the Father, because The Father's manifestation is not that of Father. It is that of the Father's SON.

PS. please do not call me "Rev." :thumbsup

[Aquila]

I think you ave your terms confused. You mean to say that the express image of the Father which is the Son is not the Father, because The Father's manifestation is not that of Father. It is that of the Father's SON.

PS. please do not call me "Rev." :thumbsup

It's not so much that I don't believe that the Son is the Father. I do believe that they are in spiritual union, existing in one "spirit", and that there is a perichoretic coinherence of nature between the two. As a result, I do believe that each partakes in all that the other is. So the Father is very much the Son and the Son is very much the Father because the two are one. However, the clearest distinction is with regards to the self-conscious realities existing in each. These self-conscious realities (what I'm calling "persons") have distinct faculties of reason, will, and emotion; one being human, the other divine.

Did the diagram I provided assist with understanding my conceptualization?

[mfblume]

It's not so much that I don't believe that the Son is the Father. I do believe that they are in spiritual union, existing in one "spirit", and that there is a perichoretic coinherence of nature between the two. As a result, I do believe that each partakes in all that the other is. So the Father is very much the Son and the Son is very much the Father because the two are one. However, the clearest distinction is with regards to the self-conscious realities existing in each. These self-conscious realities (what I'm calling "persons") have distinct faculties of reason, will, and emotion; one being human, the other divine.

Did the diagram I provided assist with understanding my conceptualization?

Your diagram said basically what you stated in words. Thanks for the effort.

[Praxeas]

It's not so much that I don't believe that the Son is the Father. I do believe that they are in spiritual union, existing in one "spirit", and that there is a perichoretic coinherence of nature between the two. As a result, I do believe that each partakes in all that the other is. So the Father is very much the Son and the Son is very much the Father because the two are one. However, the clearest distinction is with regards to the self-conscious realities existing in each. These self-conscious realities (what I'm calling "persons") have distinct faculties of reason, will, and emotion; one being human, the other divine.

Did the diagram I provided assist with understanding my conceptualization?
perichoretic coinherence means?