Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

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

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?

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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=QQLT...o8-tTOmXRQW8rg

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

LET US...

He wasn't speaking to Angels.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

He was not speaking to other gods.

God himself, Elohim was an angel.

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?*

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

*= 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?

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

What is the difference?

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

Do what????

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

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?

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".

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

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

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.

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 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?

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.)

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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".

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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

Re: Wayne Grudem-Trinitarian Madness
 

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.

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?