Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Exactly! Good point. Incarnation does not mean God changed, since God is the only Deity. And Deity never changes. It is eternal. And trinitarians must confess God changed, moreso than oneness could ever confess it, if they say oneness requires a change in God due to incarnation. This is because they refer to Jesus as "GOD THE SON". And if GOD THE SON was incarnated in flesh, that means there was a time when "GOD the Son" was not enfleshed. That means GOD CHANGED.

Look both Oneness and The Trinity believe that God incarnated as a man, so if God changed by incarnating as a man, then they both theologies believe exactly the same and both would consequently deny God's immutibility. The only difference is that Trinitarianism teaches that the Son incarnated and Oneness that the Father incarnated (as the Son). God's immutibility refers only to his deity, tso aking on a body of flesh doesn't constitute mutibility as the deity remains completely unchanged in Trinitarianism. This is why the Trinitarian creeds avoid claiming that God BECAME flesh, he instead TOOK ON flesh as BECOMING flesh implies a change in the deity whilst taking on flesh doesn't affect his divinity in any way. Let me illuistrate it this way, if I put on a jumper, do i change my essential nature as a man? NO, but if I BECAME a jumper then yes, my ontological nature as a man would ahve changed. May I say how brilliantly insightful I've found some of your most recent posts, I'm having to really think about some of your posts and how to answer them, so thank you.