Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder
I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?
|
I've explained this to you dozens and dozens of times and you either don't get it or just don't WANT to get it. You don't have to agree with me, but at least be honest about what we believe.
So let me ask you here a rhetorical question in order to address this issue...
Has George Bush ALWAYS been the President of the United States? The honest intelligent answer is no. Does that mean the PERSON George Bush did not exist until he became president? Of course not. That is a logical impossibility. The PERSON George Bush must exist in order to become the President
So to, in Oneness, Yahweh the God that created everything has always existed. HE became the Son at the incarnation when He united a Human nature to His own Person. Thus the Son is Yahweh HIMSELF (person) who has the Divine nature, hypostatically united with a Human nature. The Son then is not a mere man, someone other than God, in whom God was.
The Son is Yahweh Himself taking on a human form, adding a human nature. The Son therefore is not another person from God
Quote:
|
For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.
|
You have a logical problem here....you claim in absolute terms God can't change by becoming the Son...therefore you MUST logically and honestly conclude God also could not become that Man, Christ Jesus. Yet you would not deny the Trinitarian doctrine that God was incarnate.
God HIMSELF did not change by becoming the Son. He remained the same. His person and Divine nature was unchanged. Additionally you are misusing this verse, which you know full well already because you have agreed with me before. This verse is about changing His word or promises. Read the context and you will see His not changing has to do with his Promises to Israel. God can not lie....that is what this is about. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with taking on a different form, or nature.
Otherwise this was violated with all the theophanies